Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-10

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 October 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

The following discussion is closed:Keep, There is no indication the copyright of the work which has orginally published in 1948 was renewed {{PD-US-no-renewal}} applied. Jeepday(talk) 10:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Letter to the Editor of NYT in 1948. Been tagged PD-Manifesto. No author details. billinghurstsDrewth 08:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be an interesting case for copyright notice; not sure the overall notice on the newspaper would cover that, since the NYT was not the author. (In a similar situation, advertisements in newspapers were ruled not covered by the overall newspaper copyright, so unless they had a separate notice they became PD upon publication.) Almost certainly PD, unless it can be considered a work for hire of the NYT, but I'm not sure there is a real way to determine that (lack of notice) without seeing the original newspaper. The authors though are listed at the bottom of the article. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article would be considered as published as fair use by the newspaper (submitted for the purpose) with the copyright being owned by the authors of the letter; all the publication in the newspaper does is start the clock. This is the answer from a copyright expert I asked on the web with relation to Letters to the Editor (I made ref here to that discussion at some point). — billinghurstsDrewth 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, which means that prior to March 1, 1989, such letter would need a separate copyright notice to keep that copyright, otherwise it would become PD upon publication. I'm guessing that was the usual case, but you would need to see the actual source to know for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In Gaiman v. McFarlane the judge says that the copyright on the compilation work covers the letters to the editor (see two paragraphs starting with "McFarlane’s argument"). Note that he basically defines anything with a letters to the editor column as a compilation work, so that would apply to the NYT. He quotes "a single copyright notice applicable to the collective work as a whole serves to indicate protection for all the contributions in the collective work, except for advertisements, regardless of the ownership of copyright in the individual contributions and whether they have been published previously." and then points to a 1988 decision, so this would apply prior to March 1, 1989. I think that if you had taken this to court in 1948, they might have ruled this public domain; but given recent rulings, I don't think any US court is going to rule that way even on a 1948 work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes; that was the exact reason I mentioned the "work for hire" bit -- if the NYT was the copyright owner of the letter (the result of a "work for hire"), then the overall copyright notice would definitely cover it. If not, it gets considerably more thorny. There was a court case where a newspaper tried to claim copyright over an advertisement using that logic, but a court ruled against them (thus the "except for advertisements" part of the above statement). That was eventually codified as part of 17 U.S.C. 404. Letters-to-the-editor would seem analagous, but per the above, not quite. The above quote however was taken from the Copyright Office Circular 3, which goes on to state: For works first published before March 1, 1989, there may be additional reasons to use a separate notice. If the owner of the collective work is not the same as the owner of an individual contribution that does not bear its own notice, the contribution is considered to bear an erroneous notice. An "erroneous notice" does not appear to be the same thing as a "defective notice" (which would eliminate copyright the same as lack of notice), but there are still issues. I guess the assumption is you should assume the NYT is the copyright owner since there is no evidence to the contrary, but it will limit the right of the actual author to sue. Furthermore, for a 1948 work, it would have had to be renewed in 1975/76 -- and I'm *really* not sure if the NYT renewal would cover that, since only the actual author can renew it. Most likely it is PD for that reason if nothing else, although that is rather hard to prove since only 1978+ renewals are online. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Keep, General consensus the translation is a Kenya governmental work, qualifying for PD-GovEdict, no indication of copyright violation. Jeepday(talk) 10:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The translation is from [1], which also describes the history of the anthem. I have a hard time fitting either the original or translation into PD-GovEdict, and neither our list of copyright tags nor Commons:Licensing (I don't know how to make that work) show that Kenya treats governmental works specially.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kenya does treat governmental works somewhat specially. First, per their law (article 2 in the definitions) there is no copyright on "written law or a judicial decision", so if these lyrics were made part of a law, then there is no copyright there (and yes I think that PD-GovEdict would apply; people should not be restricted from finding out what their national anthem is). Second, per their article 25, literary works made on commission for the government have a term of 50 years from publication, so that would be the absolute limit of this work, or at least of the original. And, actually, that was a 2001 law which did not retroactively restore copyright. The law in force before that, Cap 130, had a limit of 25 years from publication on such government works, so it would appear the original has been in the public domain there since 1989. The question though is on the translation; while apparently a government work itself, that may have been separately published. Although if the English version was produced in 1976 or before, it would also seem to be definitely copyright-free. Deletion does seem a bit extreme to me, frankly, but it may be hard to apply an official tag unless PD-EdictGov is thought to apply (which it might). I may have different opinions on privately-written songs later taken as national anthems, or obviously on private translations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep as {{PD-GovEdict}} though that is more gut feel rather than hard fact. One would feel that to be a national anthem there is a specific government decision and action, and these are documented. — billinghurstsDrewth 15:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

High Flight by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. is marked as a possible copyright violation but it does not appear to have a discussion going anywhere; so I have started one. From reading the relevant Wikipedia article, I'm not sure that this poem was ever under copyright (also, they have the text as part of the article). Hopefully, someone with more knowledge can shed some light on the situation. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A tough one to research so far since the poem has been used to memorialize everybody from the Challenger shuttle pilots to unfortunate, intoxicated crop-dusting fatalities. I found a handful of mentions regarding Magee and his 'service in the Royal Canadian Air Force' and 'piloting his Spitfire' in secondary sources but, other than that, only the Wikipedia article provides any timeline of possible publication points. Born in 1922, I doubt any pre-1923 argument will cut it this time. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to check on this myself before posting it but I'm not sure what to look for in terms of first publication. Wikipedia says: "Magee enclosed the poem on the back of a letter to his parents. His father, then curate of Saint John's Episcopal Church in Washington, DC, reprinted it in church publications. The poem became more widely known through the efforts of Archibald McLeish, then Librarian of Congress, who included it in an exhibition of poems called 'Faith and Freedom' at the Library of Congress in February 1942." (This is unreferenced but I'm going to assume it's true for now.)

Those church publications could be the first publication and they probably were not registered, which would mean it is in the public domain for failure to register. On the other hand, there's no reason why they could not have been registered; if so, I'm not sure what to look for as a title (presumably it would count as a periodical).

The "Faith and Freedom" exhibition in 1942 is another candidate but I don't know if you can copyright an exhibition in itself (I'd assume each item within the exhibition would have a separate copyright, while the exhibition just means putting everything in one place rather than it counting as a specific work). I haven't found anything for "Faith and Freedom" but I may be looking in the wrong place.

I searched Google Books for copyright records and found a version set to music but that presumably applies to the music rather than the poem. Google doesn't bring anything useful back for the poem, exhibition or John Gillespie Magee (junior or senior). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Registration wasn't necessarily the requirement, but a copyright notice was. The question is when did it become "general publication", and was there a copyright notice. And even if there was, then the copyright did have to be renewed after 28 years. [Registration was a prerequisite for renewal, but the registration could come at the same time as the renewal, 27-28 years after publication.] Either one of those seems pretty unlikely, particularly given the number of times it has been published. It was marked as a copyvio simply because no license was specified originally, not based on any real copyright claim, I'm pretty sure. I think I'd keep, with PD-US-no_notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So the church publications alluded to that were enabled by his father nor the 1942 biography play any role in this in your view? I would tend to agree with keeping the work too if those two points were not possible points of a "proper" publication of the work. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The church thing may have been a general publication... may depend on the details. That was definitely printed for a limited audience, but if there were no restrictions made explicit about further redistribution, and there was no copyright notice, that may well have been it. If there was no notice on the Library of Congress thing, that should have definitely been it. Odds are extremely high that it was generally published without a copyright notice at some point between 1942 and 1989, though it would be nice to see some originals of the actual publications. BTW, here is a reference for the Library of Congress info. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My name is Ray Haas, and I am writing a book and producing a film based on the life of John Gillespie Magee, Jr., author of the poem in question, "High Flight." I have done nearly 20 years worth of research on Magee's life and have the definitive answer to the question of copyright as it concerns "High Flight." The following is from my (not yet published) book:

The sonnet "High Flight" by John Gillespie Magee, Jr., is considered in the Public Domain, meaning that no permission is required to reproduce it. This information has been verified by members of the Magee family.

There is also mention of the question of copyright in a letter that Mrs. Faith Magee (John's mother) wrote to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) on June 2nd, 1943 (letter is on file at Library and Archives Canada; I have a copy). In this letter John’s mother is replying to a request by the New York Herald Tribune asking permission to copyright High Flight. Mrs. Magee writes:

“I had already written to Mr. Miller, telling him that “High Flight” was not copyrighted and that Thomas Nelson would be free to use it in their textbooks as they pleased.”

Later in the same letter Mrs. Magee explains further:

“When we first received the poem from our son in England, it was printed in our Church leaflet here in Washington. A little later on, when we took up the matter of copyrighting it with the authorities at the Library [of Congress], they informed us that this could not now be done as it had already been in print. We were at first disappointed and felt we had made a mistake, but when our son was killed we were glad that a copyright had not been taken out, as it was possible for it to be printed widely throughout the country without permission being obtained from us.”

Thus, as far back as June of 1942, High Flight was considered in the Public Domain.

I have documentation for all of the above. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments! (ray@redacting email Jeepday(talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

2nd note: Due to the date, I don't think this one is eligible for Wikilivres either. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I agree about a 1974 publishing having a different test to apply than the 28 year rule. We would need to know whether work at that time had a copyright notice or not to determine whether it gets excluded under that test. Without knowledge/evidence of that notice, we would need to make a decision of what is our default position, ie. we presume that in absence of the info, we presume it did and we delete; or to keep presuming that it did not. — billinghurstsDrewth 02:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep first published December 1934 issue of Top Notch, per note in 1974 publication "The lost valley of Iskander" [2], JeepdaySock (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Poem written in 1946 and non-US author, and the author died in 1948. The date of death would put it post 1996, so this would be 70 years copyright in its home country, which is not reached, and still copyright in the US. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in possession of the original written copy of this verse signed by D. D. Sheehan which I have inherited. How do I go about releasing it into the public domain? Thank you for your assistance. Osioni (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you own a copy of the book, there is no way for you to release it into the public domain. Release to public domain can only be done by the owner of the copyright, usually this is the author (who died in 1948) or someone who can prove that they have copyright control from the author. As a rule it this point it is just a mater of time. Given billinghurst statement above should be public domain in 2019. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you an heir to D.D. Sheehan? In that case copyright may indeed have passed to you. If, on the other hand, the person you inherited the document from came into possession by purchasing it, you probably do not have the copyright to release. If you do have the copyright, you might consider releasing the poem under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and/or the GFDL, which allow free distribution but require attribution of the work. --EliyakT·C 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the contributions. Yes, this long verse was written by my grandfather D. D. Sheehan. I inherited the typed and signed document which he left in his belongings. These were passed to me by my father. I would judge myself to be the copywrite owner? Osioni (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The owners of the copyright are the estate of your grandfather. If there were specific terms about copyright they would be expressed in the will, otherwise they are inherited by and shared by the estate. These rights can then be determined through normal means by the executor. If you believe that you have inherited the rights (family matter to dispute and to resole, not us), then we would request that you follow the process at Commons:OTRS giving our permission with the appropriate copyright tag to host, though noting where it says Commons, we would substitute Wikisource. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We would probably want commons to be included as in the OTRS as well, assuming Osioni has access to a scanner so if made Public Domain, we could include scans of the book for validation. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

D. D. Sheehan left no will. My father took over his small case of papers which other family members were not interested in. These my father passed to me in his lifetime. I can scan a copy of the typed, signed three page verse. Where do I go from there? (waiting until 2019 is no great bother really, I'll just be 86, but an earlier solution would be preferable having no family heirs). Osioni (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

He died intestate, your father inherited the papers. You inherited the papers from your father and that would indicate that you inherited the copyright, at least sufficient to speak for the heirs. I would suggest that you undertake the OTRS process, and state that you inherited the slip of paper and the copyright. If they wish for further evidence, they will let you know as part of that process. We will place a pending notice on the work, and leave this discussion open for the moment. — billinghurstsDrewth 15:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A minor point, particularly with the OTRS, but it is relevant whether the work has been published in the US and, if so, when. Irish works enjoyed great popularity in the US, especially during the latter half of the 20th C. so publication there is not unlikely. User:Osioni, are you aware of any publication in the US, such as in a US newspaper? Particularly, if it was within 30 days of the Irish publication, the work might be in the public domain in the United States.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 11:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Kept, the (US-based) translation is PD-1923 in the US, and the (Austrian) original is PD-1923 in the US and PD-old-70 in the original country, so no issues here or at Commons. Documenting closing editor is User:InductiveloadRevision as of 02:37, 2 September 2011 . Jeepday(talk) 13:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just one doubt about Index:Freud - Reflections on war and death.djvu (1918). I found this book also here, where they mention copyright on the online version. Is this making any difference on the copyright status of this (and other) work and its use on WS? --Mpaa (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Pre-1923 publications are out of copyright in the US, and no amount of claims changes that. Sites can make claims about copyright, in fact, I can make claims about my superpowers . — billinghurstsDrewth 22:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Though it is worth noting that this is a derivative work (a translation) of a work that was still in copyright in Europe until 2009 (under the 70 years pma rules of Austria and the Czech Republic). The expiration of the underlying copyright is relevant, particularly to hosting the scans on commons.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

hmm, the templates are there but we don't have a good one to indicate that the country of first publication applies that rule. I'll have to work on that. What I mean is that the template indicates that the work is PD in countries that apply a life+70 years copyright but it has no way to note that the country of first publication is among those. It would also be useful to know whether the original work in German was ever published in the US and when the second translator, Author:Alfred B. Kuttner, died.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 11:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How does the date of death of the translator affects the copyright status? With respect to US and other countries? I am asking this with reference to another work translated from Russian and where the traslator is British and died in 1975. See The_Way_of_the_Cross. --Mpaa (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Delete, PD status of translation questionable, no one is actively pursuing release, no objections to recreation with valid PD status. Jeepday(talk) 10:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If this translation was published at all, as a literary work, that is, and not as an object of academic study in a larger work, then the only known copy of it in the entire inhabited world is found in a 21 cm tall, 8 page 'zine at the University of Oregon library, published by an East Brunswick, Australia anarchist publisher in 2000. Anyone feel like taking a road trip to the University of Oregon to see if there's a copyright notice? Me neither. DeleteResScholar (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost here; you skipped a couple steps. We have a French author who published a work in French in 1898. If I understand you right, you've searched for the work, and the only copy in English that turned up was the Australian edition? (I suspect there's holdings elsewhere, especially if you were using WorldCat, which is a bit US-centric.) I'm not sure why it having a copyright notice would be an issue; it's moot in this day and age.

I think we shouldn't blow off the concept of checking the University of Oregon, though I find it unnecessary in this case. We have members all over the world, and I for one could check a work in Harvard or MIT or the Boston Public Library.

As for our work, I don't think that it's Australian at all. It seems to be from Killing King Abacus, No. 1, Spring 2000 (Santa Cruz, CA), according to [3] and [4]. It's drifted around the net, but The Anarchist Library cites that Geocities (now backed up on Reocities) page as its source. I haven't tried to contact the editor, but it might not be hard to get permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I just get frustrated by the obscurities of these cases. If anyone had actually wanted to go to the University of Oregon, I would have said, "knock yourself out".

Presumably translations of this work, not the work itself, are either copyrighted or they aren't, depending on the respective patrons of Libertad's commitment to the abrogation of private property. That would be the issue.

I saw the Geocities link in my search; I didn't follow it because it said "accessed 2007". I would link to the Australian publisher at WorldCat, but the item page at WorldCat on my computer generally takes 45 seconds to upload and 2 more minutes to page through, and I don't want to wish that on anyone.

So now we know of two copies of the work, and you presumably would need a facsimile of the front pages of the work from this editor of this webpage belonging to the defunct Geocities. Knock yourself out! ResScholar (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Geocities website also appears to be by the original authors (or translators rather); they publish the entire pamphlet it would seem there. archive.org has a copy going back to April 1, 2001; it does not mention copyright but the version on June 2, 2001 has this note: Any texts that come out of these projects can and should be reproduced freely.Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they claim to be editors of the magazine, and they seem to be offering a public domain release. Their website is defunct, but perhaps they can still be contacted at the e-mail address listed on that webpage. Anyone interested in championing this work is free to write them. ResScholar (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Any amount of stuff is "freely and unrestrictedly available" on the Internet while still being in copyright.--Longfellow (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete; this is one of those works where if they really want to put it into the PD, we should be able to get them to send a message to OTRS without much problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have we asked the author? If our goal is to gather PD materials, it seems to me that where someone has gone to the effort of adding materials asserted to be PD, we should make it a preference to seek confirmation from the author before deleting outright, and thereby depriving our users access to information to which they could rightly have access. BD2412T

I don't particularly feel it worth my time to chase down every place on the web that someone choose to rip off. If someone else wants to, go ahead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

They changed what's at the link that I had provided about unrestricted availability of the backfile of the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (1891-1991). Basically they moved the page. It is now at at this link. Meanwhile via Internet Archive here is what was at the old link October 19, 2007: Link - the same thing about the unrestricted availability of the backfile of Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (1891-1991). The page for accessing the Burks's review itself still says "open access". Cross-posted at Talk:The New Elements of Mathematics (review by Burks). The Tetrast (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

DeleteComment -- The digitalization of the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (1891-1991) seems to comply but I don't see how extending anything currently found on Euclid, even abstracts of AMS works, is possible under their copyright. See pages 7 & 8 of 16 in this PDFGeorge Orwell III (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Check that. Going directly to the AMS site rather than through the Euclid Project site where the same AMS content has been "digitized", or however one describes the now electronic content, gives us a slightly different take on reproducing AMS content (HERE) that seems to allow reproduction here on WS if properly acredited without any required fee(s) or permission(s). Even if WS hosting equates to exclusion by meeting the definition of "general distribution" somehow, the e-mail link to request permission to copy the work using the OTRS route that Prosfilaes mentioned above is right there to draw upon as well. George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You folks seem to be used to these copyright issues, certainly more familiar than I am. I certainly hope that you come out in favor of retaining this article, but in any case thanks for your efforts to get this issue right. Basically, the pdf version is a high-KB file, the WS version is much more convenient, and Burks says a whole lot of useful things about Peirce. But I guess that the bigger interest for WS would be the ability to host articles from the backfile of the Bulletin of the AMS, I hope that that's incentive enough to pursue the possibility of keeping the Burks review. The Tetrast (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Maybe not much extra effort on my part, except in the understanding department, i.e., I can hardly follow what you're saying. Maybe I'll be able to understand tomorrow. The Tetrast (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

But the question is not whether we can distribute it; it's whether it's under a free license that anyone can distribute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. The work is not even a translation of the medieval work of the same name, it's a modern interpretation in song based on the medieval work and is unambiguously subject to copyright in Germany and there is no evidence that it is PD in the US, furthermore, the English translation of the lyrics are also unambiguously under copyright in Germany and also likely the US (ref [5]; those portions which might possibly be PD are out of scope as not being in English. The appropriate solution is to upload the Latin, Middle High German, or Old French works and continue to seek a PD or CC-BY-SA English translation, possibly uploading the other versions will encourage a wikitranslation but keeping clearly copyrighted content in page history while we await such a solution is not an acceptable option. There was some relevant discussion at the talk page now deleted as an orphan. Though it didn't seem significant enough to take the trouble to copy to here together with the page history.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 21:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone has added a note about the work more relating to Orff's composition rather than the original work. Outside of my comfort area to know. Anyone? — billinghurstsDrewth 05:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that page looks to me like a verbatim copy of Orff's (d. 1982) work. The words, divisions and structure are all the same as Orff's work, and the English is straight off the CD booklet. However, I could only find the Carmina Burana in Latin/Middle German on the IA and Google Books, so there's no easy scan to replace it with, unless someone steps up with a Wikisource translation. My Middle German and Latin are a little on the non-existent side of rusty. If anyone can find a PD English translation (side-by-side would be best), then we can easily replace this page with that. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This book would seem to be an 1884 English translation of about 60 of the original songs, I think. I know zilch about this work though. HathiTrust seems to have a couple of different editions of that book scanned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Delete, while the text can be reprinted, there is not a release in place that meets CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL as required by Wikisource. Jeepday(talk) 10:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Article added in November, and recently tagged. No knowledge of background, just adding it here for the discussion. — billinghurstsDrewth 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that as an offical court document this would be covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. - Htonl (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion would be that a court decision would be required for a government edict, rather than a statement of claim or evidence to a court. I would be more focused on the fact that a statement of claim would be a statement of facts, neither a work of artistic merit nor intellectual property, hence illegible for copyright. — billinghurstsDrewth 10:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The court's decision would be PD-EdictGov; I'm not sure that would cover materials brought in as evidence or the text of arguments (which are public record, but that is a different and separate concept then copyright's public domain -- evidence can still very much be copyrighted). This would be Crown Copyright in the UK, and I suspect that would be recognized in the U.S. Any text of that length is certainly eligible for copyright, even if the facts contained inside are themselves not eligible. (The court's decision text would also be Crown Copyright in the UK, but that would not be recognized in the U.S.) The UK government has recently started issuing many documents under an Open Government License, but we would need to see that explicitly stated for each work. There is also apparently a sort of copyright waiver for certain types of public records, but I'm not sure that would apply in this case, or if the restrictions in there would allow it to be "free". I may err on the side of caution, but it's possible someone could find an argument to keep somewher under the new UK Gov licensing framework. This document is linked from an en-wiki article; that link should be removed if this is deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like common sense that in any legal system which normally holds public trials the indictment in a public trial is a public document, e.g. it is normally read out at the start of the trial and anyone whose shorthand is up to it could note it down. On Thursday I had a word at the court with Jim Doleman who is maintaining a blog on the trial, he thought it was a public document and he has a copy on his blog. This was taken from the Glasgow Herald's website, so it's already online at at least 2 other places. Wikisource has the judgements in several UK legal cases, it would be surprising if they are public documents but the indictment is not. These judgements appear to be governed by an Open Government Licence [6], I expect that indictments are as well, but I must admit I cannot give you chapter and verse, maybe we should look into this further. Generally, it would be useful to clarify exactly which documents are covered by the Open Government Licence since this could affect several ducments which it would be useful to have on Wikisource. PatGallacher (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the difference is the terms of any release, and what may be done to the work. We need to be able to have it in an editable form, and that is often outside the conditions of the release. We cannot host on the terms of "fair use", etc. Hopefully this discussion will better educate us all, and provide with greater knowledge of what is and is not allowable. — billinghurstsDrewth 08:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this gets into the concept of "public record" versus copyright, and also the differences in US and UK copyright law. en-wikisource operates under US copyright law. In the UK... I believe both the indictment and the court's decision would be under Crown Copyright, while anything from the defense lawyers would be (technically) copyrighted by them under regular copyright. They would all be "public records" yes, which is a separate concept -- the public is allowed to see them, and I think it is perfectly legal to print and publish those, as is being done by the newspapers and websites you mention, which implies that some of the rights normally conferred by copyright ownership are overridden. However, copyright ownership also includes the right to control derivative works, and commercial use of the work, and I don't think those are overridden by public record status -- thus, public records are not necessarily "free" in the definition that Wikimedia Foundation mandates for all works hosted on its projects (see Wikisource:Copyright policy). The U.S. however does not recognize any copyright in texts with legal effect ("edicts of government"); this includes the text of legislation, and court decisions. So, despite the fact that the UK claims Crown Copyright on those type of works, the U.S. does not recognize that, and therefore Wikisource (operating under U.S. law) can host them, since they are not protected by copyright at all (we have the {{PD-EdictGov}} tag for that). However, I'm not sure that definition would cover the text of an indictment, so I suspect the U.S. would consider that as copyrightable, and the UK government could still control that copyright in the U.S. A number of years ago, the UK started having an automatic copyright waiver on certain types of works (legislation, unpublished public records made available after 30 years, and others) which allowed a wide range of uses without permission, but I think the conditions were still such that they could not be considered "free" under our definition (unless of course they are deemed ineligible for U.S. copyright). Recently, with the new licensing, the UK does specify that all works previously available under the waiver are now available under their new Open Government License, which *is* "free" by our standards, and thus wikisource can start hosting any such non-edict material which falls under that license (we need a tag for that BTW -- there is Commons:Template:OGL if we want to copy it). I'm not sure that indictments were covered under the automatic waiver, so I think we need to see something which explicitly states it is released under that license, or some general declaration from the UK government saying that type of work is automatically included under that new license. I haven't found anything like that yet, though it may exist somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Carl, I am not so sure that the US "edicts of government" rule can be relied on with respect to non-US governments. The only cases I'm aware of applying ("discovering") this rule are cases applying it to the acts of US states and territories and as far as I know the only place that the United States says this is in the Compendium II, which is not a law.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but that is the handbook of the Copyright Office, and by that they would refuse a copyright registration on such material, which would need a successful lawsuit to get that changed. Until that happens... that is the by far the best authority to go by in my opinion. But I don't think that applies here -- judicial rulings yes, but not the other material associated with the case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Delete, there are many arguments for keep and delete here. Without rehashing the discussion, the concerns of those who suggesting delete can not be overcome without some legal clarification. That clarification may never come, so it is unlikely that the {{copyvio}} will find consensus for removal. There is no intent to set any standard in this closure. The content is of questionable public domain status and clarity is not expected in the near future. Jeepday(talk) 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the Unabomber's infamous manifesto. Since the original publication by various newspapers in response to the threats of bodily harm, a Federal court has ruled that all of Teddy's works seized by the Federal government in connection with the prosecution of his crimes, including the manifesto's drafts, were to be put up for auction in order to satisfy the outstanding amount (in the millions of U.S. dollars) in repirations due to his victims. The following URL has a good summary of the specifics with many links throughout, but there are quite a bit more out there as well....

Since his attempt to place this work in the public domain was made in lieu of an unlawful act in the first place and now the leins against any potential or existing benefit(s) that may be derived from these works by his victims I believe Wikisource should not host works than remain in such a legal state of flux. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it the documents that are for sale, or the copyright? I wouldn't have thought that anyone who bought the works would be able to claim the copyright of the works sheerly through purchase of the works. Until I see articles that address that matter, I do not see that we have a change in the status of the works. — billinghurstsDrewth 15:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the lien against the works that is the issue not the physical paper or percieved copyright. — George Orwell III (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong (happens sometimes) but from the link provided it is "Personal Property" that is for sale, which happen to include "Writings". If the intellectual property which writes have been released to Public Domain, we can host them. I can own the original "Writings" [7] of Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens, but the copyright of the words is Public Domain. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the court ruling puts in jeopardy any supposed placing of the work in the public domain, not so much the physical copies or claim to authorship themselves. He may indeed still be the copyright owner but exercising his right to reproduce (or place it in or out of PD in this case) is no longer his and his alone -- the victims granted repirations now curtail any claim of exclusivity. I'm not a lawyer but the accepted practice until now has been to avoid legal gray areas when it comes to manifestos and to err on the side of caution.

The circumstances in which the attempt to place in public domain where done in conjunction with the executon of an unlawful act (publish this or people will die) so I don't believe that was valid to begin with. Skip ahead in time and now the court will not let him even donate such works, never mind sell, unless the victims are made whole (the court finding they are owed a sum still in the millions of dollars) in the process. I believe it is safe to surmise that not only was the original attempt to place the work in the public domain bogus but now there is an additional burden of needing the victims to relent, then agree to, furthering any reproduction (or in this case, placing into PD) of any of his works. Either way, I believe the legal clarity no longer exists and therefore the work should be removed in light of the new legal ambiguity. — George Orwell III (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

The idea you are guaranteed or secure the rights to anything, let alone in this case -- exercising the right to place works or claim rights of authorship during the execution of what later became a conviction under plea bargain of a Federal crime never mind the threshold of any unlawful act at all -- not supported by any legal argument but defies common sense in the process.

To boot, the convicted AGREED to this lien when he accepted the plea bargain assuring no death penalty would be sought during sentencing. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

delete A Slate article confirms that George Orwell III's assertions are held by some legal experts. There being doubt, we should err on the side of caution. Prosody (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I concur, there is reasonable question about the copyright status. Until such time that the works are clearly in the public domain they should not be on WS. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The document is in the public domain (In his letter to the FBI Kaczynski wrote that the article "must become public property" six months after its publication) and the Slate article is four years old and does not claim the copyright was contested. The article is about Ted Kaczynski's ownership of the physical manuscript and only mentions the copyright in a "what if" context and does not cite any legal experts. George Orwell III's link also refers to his physical possessions and not the copyright. The copyright status is not in question, and moral objections to its availability on Wikisource should not be discussed here. --Protious (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the idea that we should "err on the side of caution" is not valid, since any possible future lawsuit making the article copyrighted will not be retroactive. --Protious (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The text from the talk page around the rights to the copyright are clearly annunciated and state that the work was put into the public domain, and it has been in the public domain for a number of years. The cited court ruling states "The current Plan, however, is strictly limited to the physical originals of the documents previously seized from Kaczynski's cabin." so it is completely speculative that copyright can be or will be affected, especially when they come from unnamed sources who are not citing either relevant legislation or legal precedent. I do agree on a conservative approach, and that has been where there has been lack of clarity on release to the public domain, which is not the case here. At this point in time there seems a legal basis to maintain the work. This work can be hosted in my opinion, and as the text has been freely and widely published as being in the public domain, should continue to be hosted until the off chance that we get a takedown notice, or are instructed to do so on the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation. I look forward with interest to the case and its appeal to the Supreme Court, and to see how and where American's constitutional approach to free speech, and a civil damages claim interacts with the author's right to the intellectual property and when they can give it away, and copyright law. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cabin trinkets part of WHOLE auction but just a portion of the ENTIRE ruling. And if you kept reading thru ALL the rulings (now linked way above).....

The restitution lien statute assists the government in collecting unpaid restitution orders that have been imposed on those convicted of federal crimes. The statute provides that a lien arises automatically upon entry of judgment against these individuals and may be enforced against all property and property rights, regardless of the nature of the property. The statute is thus generally applied to all individuals subject to restitution orders, is not dependent upon the discretion of any government officials, and does not vary according to the type of property that is owned by these individuals. Because a restitution lien, like any other tax lien, can be constitutionally applied in many cases, Kaczynski's facial challenge must fail.

Please note once again: the issue here is the LIEN per the ordered restitution per the entered upon plea-bargain at the time of conviction, retroactive to the point in time the crime(s) against the victims, named or unnamed, were committed. The auction only being one of many parts of the effort to satisfy the outstanding amount that was ordered. Please understand that the media mostly reported on the sensational part of the ruling, the auction itself and the cabin items seized. FINE. NO ARGUMENT THE AUCTION CONCERNED ONLY SEIZED ITEMS BY THE GOVERNMENT. NOW PLEASE ADDRESS THE REST OF THE ORDERED LIEN (the top 4 statutes are linked above now as well). The remaining non-sensational, under-reported portion of the restitution ruling is all encompassing (all rights, all property, be they physical in nature or not, secured in the past or not, perceived by only a few people or just remotely possible sometime in the future) as clearly (re)stated in the 2009 ruling quoted above. What?? the claim here is once the auction was over and all the items were exhausted that an outstanding amount was somehow raised, the lien then somehow became satisfied so the victims' previously created and or transfered rights were then automagically disolved then returned exclusively to the the convicted as if nothing happened? I don't buy that and nobody should.

A transfer of rights took place in lieu of an operation of law. YES it was after the fact (i.e. after the crime(s), after the letter(s) were sent, after the publication and circulation stipulation attempted, after he got caught. after he was "tied" to the document in question as indeed the first-fixating recognized creator of said document, after the trial took place and after his plea-bargained conviction was secured. Yes. Yes. Yes. & Yes plus a Yes just in case.All that makes no difference and has no bearing on the operation of law and/or the creation and/or transference of rights then afforded to the victims as ordered by the courts AND as the alledged author agreed to in a plea-bargain. This is retroactive, non-individual specific and generally automatic by the nature of the existing laws involved (above). The victims were already "tied" to this work and any other related rights and property that may or may not exist by the alledged author in question from the moment of the crime against "them" were concieved -- making any individual attempt by the alleged copyright holder to exercise any right dead on inception as well as null & void prior to the attempted exercise of perceived right, unlawful or not, even took place.

The fact this did not become legally clear until much later than the supposed attempt to place the work in the public domain means nothing when it becomes clear he was never the exclusive rights holder by that point. The fact he lost his anonymity in authorship of the work at trial only helps drive a distinction between lawful and unlawful claim to copyright; not help him skate on the facts at hand. It was a mistake to host the work while the legal appeals process and sentencing reviews were still taking place. Now we know better thanks to the various legal wranglings in question being exhausted one by one and closed to any further debate. The notion such a cut and dry ruling sees the Supreme Court is misplaced. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: this seems like a particularly complicated legal situation. Could we ask the WMF lawyers for an official opinion? - Htonl (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That would put the matter in question to rest. The question is not about the status of ownership of work; this is clearly retained by the now understood-to-be author of the work - Mr. Kaczynski. It is one or more of the the rights granted by this ownership status that were never really allowable for him to be exercised -- first because the attempt to exercise the right of placement does not usurp the victims' rights infringed upon when taking place in conjunction with the numerous crimes being committed in the process. Second He admitted as much when he signed the plea-bargaining deal sparing him the death penalty that, at the same time waived most of his rights by his own hand, and then tried to rectify these violations against his victims & their rights and protections by imposing a lien against anything and everything remaining at his disposal that might earn him a single penny or increase his notoriety by one notch; insuring the value of his writings never become monetized or academically realized in the process.

Until this lien is satisfied (over 10 million dollars is still owed) these rights granted by normal ownership, as well as many other defined rights being curtailed and properties liquidated not related to the question of copyright ownership property or rights, became part of the lien.

Since the work was never lawfully placed in the public domain to begin with, any right to do so lawfully pre-capture or post-conviction being waived by him in the plea agreement deal since and on top the fact any exercising of the right to place in PD moving forward needs to be done by those victims outlined in the ordered restitution settlement now, we should not be hosting this work knowing what we know at this moment in time. The lien holders are the ones, by operation of law, currently holding the lien against the 2 rights we need clearly and completely exercised here on WS to host this and any other works by the same author as they relate to the same convicted crimes, etc.

the right to reproduce the copyrighted work (public domain in this case - NOT, see the unlawful act violating rights of others, the plea bargain waiving remaining rights, victim's hold rights via the lien above 1 more time if it helps)

the right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work (Attribution/CC3 etc - NOT, convict's right to exercise any of the rights normally granted to copyright owners transferred until lien is satisfied. It's safe to say the victims are unlikely to [co]consent to this anytime soon either).

Kaczynski's works, it seems, are currently not meant to be enjoyed or studied or whatever term you'd like to use here by other people, as well as by himself, while he is still alive and/or until that lien is removed by another operation of law in the future or satisfied by total dollar amount paid in full. Neither of the latter is likely to happen in his lifetime and that was the ultimate purpose, a purpose now ruled legal and in effect by the 9th Federal District and Appeals courts again for the 3rd time in 2009, really behind this legal construct. Its that simple. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple is hardly the word. ;-) No offence to you; just that the legalities seem to be inordinately complicated. It is clear to me now that there has been, as you say, a lien on all of Kaczynski's property as from the date of his conviction in terms of the plea bargain. What is not clear to me, though, is whether the copyright to his manifesto was still his property at the time of conviction, given that he had already purported to release it to the public domain before that time. I am not aware that works can be retroactively removed from the public domain (URAA excepted). Of course, if it wasn't lawful for him to release it to PD at the time, then that question becomes moot. But this is why I would really like, if possible, to have a WMF lawyer render a proper opinion on this, because I don't think we here are really qualified. - Htonl (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ownership is still his and that is unwavering in its exclusivity. This ownership comes with the granting of certain rights and/or protections. Some these are the right to duplication, the right to sell copies to the public, the right to freely place with the public [domain], the right to create derivative works based on the original, etc. etc. These defined rights may be transferred to some other entity independent of the copyright ownership itself. For example, one can license the rights of [re]distribution to one organization or another with limits on exclusivity expiring after an agreed upon length of time, grant free re-use of the work by a not-for-profit organization as long as proper attribution to the copyright holder(s) is included in their end-product and even sell the rights to create a derivative of the work ultimately arriving in the form of a motion picture and still be the copyright owner all at the same time.

It is these type of rights (and protections) that makes having ownership actually worth something, be it on a personal academic level or financially profitable in nature. As hastily alluded to above, one can see that not only can you transfer copyright ownership in its full shape and form but also piecemeal transfer out (or sell forever) the individual segments of the ownership in the vehicle generally labeled as exclusive rights to ownership. It is the exercising of these segments that has been curtailed and is no longer exclusive through an operation of law in the Unabomber's case. First in the violation of the rights of another person during the attempted exercising of a granted full (or segmented) right by one person. This is an unlawful act. Second, by the court sanctioned restitutions awarded to the victims in response to the unlawful act violating their rights.

I cannot punch you in the face every time I exercise my right to make a copy of the work that I own. I might think I can because I don't believe you matter or that anyone will catch me. Nevertheless, you have the right not be punched in the face. Pretty soon my usurpation of your rights while attemting to exercise my rights comes back to haunt me in a legal determination saying that all that exercising in this manner has opened me up to liabilties inherently present in executing such unlawful acts at the same time as my exercising of rights. Its unlawful since your rights were violated in the process and execution of what I thought I had right to do in spite of fulfilling the requirements needed of me for ownership protections to be created... again ownership is not in doubt. During my sentencing, restitution is awarded to you, the victim, part of which now includes the transferring my previous right to make copies. This was done in hopes to teach me and society a moral lesson and so that you will get the money awarded to you faster (and without my usual skimming of the profits). Once paid off, I get the right back to make copies and you no longer have any further claim to the blockbuster movie based on my book, the lessons I learned and my wild time in jail coming out next summer.

Sorry for the trip to fantasy courtroom there, with such a poor excuse for an illustrative example of the nuances at play here, but I think you may get something out of it by framing the issue that way. As long as the lien exists he can't exercise his rights by design. If the victims wanted the money they'd push for selling and promoting all the works - not stifle it. The high amount insures he will most likely never be rewarded with making money off the victims pain and suffering - not that he intends or ever wanted to. The plea bargain let him live but not without consequence. A brilliant essay that is read by one person is called a "daily diary" not a manifesto of any sort -- and this is probably what bothers him more than any denial of dollars in the future ever could.

I realize this state or resolution is impossible to attain by most measure so after-the-fact and with so much questionable internet saturation having already taken place in the interim. That doesn't mean we should be so flippant about hosting a work without considering the above implications and intentions both framed by the law as it stands today. The fact nobody will ever pursue this legally for either point of view (most likely) is also beside the point — George Orwell III (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. He released it under a free license. If the new copyright owners can revoke that, then anyone can revoke any contribution they make under a free license. The legal principle we need to stand by is that free licenses are irrevokable. At the very least, we should wait until some positive action is made to revoke the license before taking action.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see the connection to his illegal actions being relevant. He had a right to release his document into the public domain; he was under no lien at the time. The fact that his attempt to get it published was illegal is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He released something his very first victim and every victim therafter had a claim against by that time in his crime spree -- yes, making his ownership exclusive, as all creators of any work are by law, but his right granted under that ownership became non-exclusive, such as when attempting to exercise "placement", per an operation of law in the vehicle simply defined as a lien. The fact these particulars were later established and then became public knowledge afterwards does not change the fact his crimes introduced this liability far before the manifesto incident and he only thought his continued non-capture afforded him the right to waive his rights under ownership and place in public-domain. Too bad he got caught otherwise the annonymous nature of the work would still validate such a placement today, but those facts were never established as they are today. There are NO new copyright owners - only new copyright owner rights holders. He is, was and will forever be the "owner". Its the lien against the exercising of the rights granted to owners that has been curtailed. Its not as if the victims now can exercise these rights normally afforded to copyright owners by themselves either (not that they wish to - the money owed is symbolic not desired). For republication, derivative works, to place in PD, etc. -- both parties would need to consent to the action being exercised, as long as the amount awarded in the lien remains outstanding of course. That is the entire point of the plea bargain sparing his life when it sought to curtail this ability to "manipulate" all his works; be the action for free, to the public at large or for personal profit -- shown in an amount awarded in repirations he near certainly never could or would repay. If by some chance he does pay the outstanding amount, the rights typically granted to copyright owners returns to his exclusively and therefore becomes able to finally exercise them any way normally allowed. — George Orwell III (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way the law works; a victim doesn't have a lien against any property until a court says so. If your neighbor gives you his lawn mower, does it retroactively not become yours because the man turns out to have killed someone? A court takes from what someone has, not from what he has in good faith gotten rid of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What "good faith" are you referring to? The part where the essay to follow was a product of collaborative contribution when it wasn't? The part where its signed "F.C." instead of his real name? The part where he imposes a timeline? or is it the part that threatens continued violence if dictated stipulations and caveats are not followed or met? I call bull-sh!t in advance on any notion answering these points qualify as creative in nature nor are part of any author's artistic license to spend. It is the degree of clear intent that is legally weighed in determining the validity when the exercising of rights, such as those in play here, are in question.

It is convenient to ignore the context this search for intent can be found within and jump straight to a justification; citing a single written paragraph removed from context as proof of lawful waiver but if one goes by the legal weighing of intent in context (and with the added benefit of hindsight today), it doesn't matter what you, I or he thought was or was not being done "in good faith" - the facts today clearly demonstrate the intent was to misrepresent himself and his intentions while remaining a fugitive of the law/perpetrator of serious crimes in hopes someone would ignore all that and still publish the work - not because he genuinely no longer wanted any claim to the work as its author, liked using F.C. for a 'pen-name' or anything as innocent as well as allowable under the law as those may be. I am fairly sure misrepresenting oneself while exercising any right or entering into any transaction is an unlawful act in of itself; never mind when it's done alongside several more serious crimes, spanning several years, but also attempts to extort the furthering of this unlawful enterprise with additional warnings of further violence in the very same Context the attempted waiving of rights was hoped to be delivered validly in! This misrepresentation coupled within a larger frame of a series of unlawful acts makes me believe the legal threshold for what construes an acceptable waiving of owner/holder rights was never a valid one. The fact his later appeals included the return or release of his physical and/or intellectual properties despite agreement by plea bargained conviction in my view only supports the idea his intent, be it applied or perceived at the time, was not genuine but simply opportunistic when facing limited available courses and legal means to achieve the same state & status any normal law abiding citizen can do without such questions of validity or legality arising. George Orwell III (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, there are thousands and thousands of uncaught murderers editing on Wikipedia. Do we have to delete all those edits because they are property of the victims who may not want to release them under a free license?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are certain that someone is wanted by law enforcement for committing some crime and actively know of his or her (electronic) whereabouts, I suggest you inform the appropriate authorities then legal as soon as possible.

Are we certain of the identity of the individual, the crimes committed, the plea-bargained conviction and the ordered restitution as it relates or pertains to this narrow discussion surrounding the single work in question or not? Therein lies the answer to your analogous question. George Orwell III (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

From a different perspective. Assume Kaczynski is the creator of a product, say a house (the copyright to his written works). He then sells or trades exclusive use of the house to you (victims and government), in exchange for something of value (his life in the plea bargain). The House is created from material owned by you (victims and government) which he never had had legal possession of (created as part of a crime). What if he also posts to Craigslist an add offering the house to anyone who wants to use it for the any purpose and the house is overrun with visitors (Public Domain) . The crime is to the copyright as a materials lien is to the house, while he may be the creator, he has not yet secured full title. He is not at liberty to sell or give away the copyright/lien until he has full ownership. He has traded his interest in the copyright/lien to the lien holders/victims so that they may manage the property/copyright in order to recoup the value of their contributions to the projects/written work. Until such time as the lien is satisfied, Kaczynski is not at liberty to offer free access to the house/copyright, until such time as lien holders have collected sufficient rent to satisfy the lien. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

YES, thank you. I was begining to be more than a little taken aback that folks thought this is some Sam Clemens writing as Mark Twain or something as innocent as that and not a convicted killer who was impersonating a group of malcontents using the federal postal system to carry out their brand of domestic terror for over a decade. Yes, he is the orginal author and therefore the copyright owner but unfortunately Title 17 (U.S. copyright laws) does not exist alone in a vacuum, untouched by the 49 other titles that make up the entire U.S. Code. It is an instance where the legal solution finds a way to undo the insured copyright protections and rights bestowed upon on all authors in the narrow instance when a federal convicted criminal is in question. This case is particular clear since he signed away the these rights in the unconditional plea bargain - aiding in the operation of law in the form of restitution through a lien. Its not like they can do this to the everyday citizen author who hasn't blown anybody up in the process of creating a work. My God people, are you really saying copyright law is the supreme law of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts?? — George Orwell III (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He didn't blow up anyone up in the process of creating a work. This is not w:A Bucket of Blood here. Besides killing people, in a variety of ways, there are many ways of getting a lien on your property, including bankruptcy. I think it against our best interest to assume that courts can and will revoke a licensing agreement made prior to court proceedings in good faith, hurting secondary parties relying in good faith on that contract.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He could only sell or trade those rights he still had.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

His crimes opened him, and his works, to the liability of others being able to lay claim to them. It is this liability eventually turned into restitution, begrudgingly if not willfully, signed into an agreement by him. There was no good faith whatsoever, as shown by his caveat of further deaths in his demand for publication and attempt to place into PD. Again, another narrow instance where an unlawful act undermines the normal application of law. Yes there are many ways a lien can be placed against your property, in this case intellectual property. One of them is to be spared the death penalty in return for all your property and rights as is the case here in this narrow instance. I think its in our best interests to follow the law no matter where it takes us. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If he can agree here to overturn a free license, he can agree anywhere to overturn a free license. I'm happy to take the advice of the Creative Commons attorneys that he can't agree to remove the free license from his work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Henever lawfully waived his rights as copyright owner, making the work lawfully free to any and all in the public domain, in the first place. Public Domain is a "negative space"; it only exists when legally recognized intellectual property owners and/or holders lawfully waive the rights and/or protections granted to them by and in the eyes of the law. "Placing" something in PD is a bit of a misconception because the term misrepresents what is really needed for any work to be free and clear of any claim or liability under the law. In order for the original 1995 waiving of copyright protections and rights by it's recognized author/owner at the time (known simply by the signature "F.C.") to still be clear and valid today, Teddy should never have admitted to being the sole creator of the work in spite of all the evidence found in his cabin to the contrary showing he, and he alone, was the creating author of the work. The "good faith" shown to all such waivers of copyright, even to such unknown or unverifiable authorships, from some point in late 1995 to the day of his conviction in May 1998, solidified with that plea bargain he signed, became dissolved by an operation of law creating new (and lawful) rights by definition in the form of a lien (all-encompassing) that was court ordered as relief (victim restitution) on that same day. If you were lucky enough to publish the work between 1995 and 1998, you are the legal copyright holder of that derivative work free from any post or current lien liability as an actor in good faith at the period in time in question. That time is now gone and the right holder status has changed with it. Any further reproduction or derivatives after that May 1998 conviction date either needs a waiver by the current derivative holders (I assume mostly major newspapers published circa 1995 to 1998; and doubt any of them are willing to for en.WS purposes), both the lien holder victims and copryright owner Teddy together (not likely either but one can try) or I fear it is being done contrary to the operation of law here and, knowing what we know now, is far from acting in good-faith never mind in accordance with U.S. law and the Federal court rulings since as they currently stand. Simply, too much of a legal gray area to host in my view. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep.1) Kaczynski always had and still has the copyright. 2) It is not disputed that he clearly expressed a firm intention that the works be placed in the public domain, going so far as to stipulate the date on which that should be the case. 3) That intention has not been rescinded, and 4) even if it had been after the fact of the work becoming public domain, that would have been without effect in that there is no ability of a copyright holder to rescind public domain status. Such status is irrevocable, as far as the copyright holder(s) are concerned. I imagine some governments may claim a right to rescind in law public domain status for, for example, national security or public safety reasons (i.e. to retroactively "classify" a work as secret), but the status of such a revocation is I believe legally uncertain. Even the scope of governing jurisdiction is unclear, because "the public" (who own a public-domain work) is a worldwide human population, and also the future extension of that global population. 5) It is probable that the current wikipedia status is not really a copyright dispute but an attempt for political and economic reasons to censor the work. Some parties may strongly disagree with the message in the work and thus wish to see it censored. Some may strongly object to the criminal acts surrounding and related to the production and publication of the work, and may wish to prevent that criminal activity being rewarded with famous public-domain status of the work. Others may justifiably want to see increased compensation payed to the victims of the criminal acts. While some of these arguments have "moral" merit, I believe the arguments have no legal bearing on the public domain status of the work, which is governed by simple intellectual property laws. Only in a distortion of the law for purposes of serving perceived moral balancing, i.e. a vigilante abuse of law, could legal rulings against the public domain status be produced.—unsigned comment by142.232.74.81 (talk) .

# emphasis above mine . . .

It can't be both for the work to wind up free and clear in the public domain can it?.

I would venture that he still has the natural copyright by virtue of his having created the work, but that (while he did have the further right to act on his copyright) he has irrevocably waived his (or any subsequent copyright holder's) ability to place restrictions on copying, by stating the intention that the work be made public. In other words he himself had limited his future right to restrict copying, by making use of his copyright to limit the future form of operation of his copyright. Any subsequent restriction by a court of his right to exercise/act on the copyright is moot, since the exercising the right (in the form of declaring intent that it be public) had already happened before such a court restriction took effect.—unsigned comment by142.232.74.81 (talk) .

I would wholeheartedly accept this premise had we still been under the impression the copyright owner and/or copyright rights holder(s) were still the anonymous, unattributed and unknown author or authors simply recognized by the original "mark", F.C., today. In that light and at that point in time, the intent to waive the normal rights and benefits granted to any such author could be viewed as lawful and proper for that instance because "we" did not nor could not associate the crimes in question, the liabilities the crimes introduced, the manner and legality of the author's intent perceived and all the rest of the particulars with a tangible, physically recognizable and commonly attributable individual of person.

The point here is one of the facts and information that's come to be understood and accepted since that initial light and that point first in time. None of this could or would be a question today IF that status of unknown and unattributed authorship had remained anonymous and un-connectible to the crimes later prosecuted that introduced the liabilities in question now as it affects the status of copyright today. At the same time and for argument's sake, had the true authorship been established at that time as belonging to Ted Kaczynski, notF.C. &/or others in that "gang", his attempt to waive those rights might actually hold some legal water today in spite of the fact his actions before, during and after the publication of this and other works had or has introduced the right of his victims, by an operation of law, to lay claim against any and all of his property, including the intellectual, as part of the relief sought by them as a result of crimes committed against them -- but he didn't sign the work with his real name did he? Not that this bars the granting of rights and benefits of authorship under copyright law but it does muddy the question of how valid or lawful the attempt to waive those rights were and whether or not that exercise is still acceptable for hosting today here never mind recognized as lawful in the eyes of the law either way.

Fast forward in time and we, as well as the courts, have come to establish there was no band of actors at work in authorship; just Kaczynski, and that F.C. and Kaczynski are one and the same sole author of the work. The logical result being the liability that always is introduced and exists when perpetuating illegal or unlawful acts, especially those against other people directly, previously enjoyed by being anonymous and unattributed as a known person vanishes once the work is later not only discovered thru the investigation but claimed as his work by Kaczynski himself. If the intent was ever true prior to that point of connection to the crime spree and the change in author status going from anonymous to attributed, he should have never admitted to being its author regardless of the evidence showing otherwise. Once he did, it was fair game to have a lien placed against it just like any other property is fair game when restitution is awarded to victims -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That would have been a valid assertion had he remained anonymous and on the run from his crimes. If his intent was to place it in the public domain and avoid any question, he should have made his true self known and waived his rights as the only creator/author of the work like hundreds & hundreds of people manage to do every day without any need for to make threats of violence against others in the process of hoping to increase readership or circulations of the work at the expense of others.

Any previous attempt to validate the author's "intent" have since been shown to be null and void by his own hand in addition to being superseded by an operation of law producing new rights and new right holders in the form of a lien both at once. None of this could have remained an issue today had he simply done the waiving of his rights and protections separate from further committing more Federally indictable crimes while remaining a Federal fugitive at large at the same time OR remained unassociated with being the sole author, sole rights-holder of the work. He couldn't manage keeping up with the first and he couldn't stop himself from taking credit for the second.

Yes, he may indeed still have all his rights, supporting the notion his intent was never about waiving anything or following through lawfully in the first place. He just can't exercise any of those rights today because months after being caught, he pretty much signed anything & everything away as part of a plea bargain to save his life. The deal secured his liability in the eyes of the court and opened his victims up to making their claim for relief as was negotiated in the form of court-ordered, civil-suit restitution. That lein remains largely outstanding this very day.

I am basing the above position in the statutes, laws and regulations of the United States of America and how they pertain to the continued operation of Wikisource by its membership under that law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You will not find anything in the US Copyright laws about "placing something in the public domain" because the public domain is a negative-space concept. One needs to lawfully waive all rights and protections afforded to such authors for their works to be lawfully recognized to be free and clear of all claims and liabilities resulting in the uninfringeable use of these works by any and all in the public at large who desires to do so.

I believe this did not happen back then, we have the benefit of hindsight that's cleared many of the unknowns since and now have the foundations of legitimate legal concerns and/or jeopardy at hand. If the wish is to remain a credible and consistent free online resource I vote not to host this one unique instance created one particular individual justified by a narrow set of circumstances. There is no precedent being set here - just a correction of a previous oversight. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep This text was released before the plea bargin/lien. Once something has been released it cannot be taken back (with the possible exception of an Act of Congress and even that is debatable)--BirgitteSB 21:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep There is no copyright violation. Nobody even claims a copyright on it. This is just censorship of some offensive ideas. Schlafly (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. There's no way that a court-ordered lein can be applied in such as way as to overturn the fundamental principle that intellectual property placed into the public domain must remain there. To the extent that it can be interpreted that way, it is merely poorly written and requires clarification from a higher court. Hesperian 01:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, finally starting to comprehend the counter-argument: that the document was never effectively placed into the public domain, because Kaczynski didn't have exclusive rights to it at the time. Hesperian 01:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that that kind of proposed retroactivity of lien would nullify the validity of any "closed" disposition of property done by a person who is subsequently convicted of a crime (which introduces liability.) Clearly that is infeasible. Consider the case where Alice murders someone, then sells her house to Bob. Then Alice is convicted of the murder. Then relatives of the murder victim sue Alice and Bob and try to recover the house from Bob. Not going to happen. And in the same way, you can't recover the "closed" disposition of the work as "public domain" retroactively. In the analogy, Bob is "the world's public" that has received the work in a closed transaction. You could recover from Alice the money made from the sale of the house, or from the unabomber any money made from the notoriety surrounding the events and the manifesto (e.g. movie royalties etc.) but you can't recover the public domain work from the public. —unsigned comment by142.232.74.81 (talk) .

As long Alice signed the work as Alice not Betty in attempt to continue to remove possible liability from the work as well as to continue to remain a fugitive from the law -- then that makes complete sense. But the attempt to exercise the right is betrayed by the unlawful acts as well as not being genuine in using one's own name to remove any doubt of intent in addition to the possibility of others being able to lay claim to this and other properties thanks to said unlawful actions - making any exercise of copyholder right disengenous at best and fraudulent at worst but unlawful nevertheless. The use of F.C. was not done in the artistic sense as Mark Twain was to Sam Clemmons - it was done to continue to break the law while believing he still had uninfringeable rights at the time as the creator of a work in spite of the state of unlawful actions being undertaken. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy this for a minute. An anonymous work is anonymous, dammit! If F.C.'s release of the material can be ruled out after the fact, because you found out more about him and his motives for being anonymous, the same is true for any random Wikipedia account holder hiding behind an alias. Which makes Wikipedia one big waste of time, a proprietary document just waiting to be announced as such! I reject that - we must reject that utterly. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The question of anonymity goes toward author's intent and that is the measure used to determine if a work can be considered lawfully waived of all author rights and/or benefits normally granted without question or limit by Copyright law in order for the work to be ultimately considered in the Public Domain for reuse. The understood condition that facilitates legally recognized copyright status upon creation is one where it is believed that no other claim or liability exists or were created preventing the lawful execution of those copyright rights and/or benefits granted to all authors. If an author uses large swaths of other authors' works (i.e. content ruled by the courts that is well beyond the definition of simple 'Fair Use') within a newly created work and then attempts to waive his or her Copyright law rights with the intent to have the work wind up in the Public Domain while also being free and clear of any and all claim and liability against said author or the new work, they are sorely mistaken.

That is just an unlawful attempt as was the attempt in this case because it abused one of the understood 'good-faith' conditions where other standing laws and/or other individuals' secured rights are being violated. The statement or hope of what appears to be a clear and unambiguous intent by authors for their work to be lawfully considered Public Domain becomes moot when the condition of free and clear of all claim or liability does not exist at the same time. Just as those other hypothetical authors whose works where reproduced unlawfully without their permission introduces a claim against that new work and its author, retroactively invalidating any notion of the new work being free and clear for reuse by any and all in the Public Domain at the same time, so too is the case with this work albeit the liability of Kaczynski's criminal actions and an operation of law together introduced the claim against his works. Nevertheless, the condition of lawfulness or the lack thereof allows for the retroactive invalidation of assumed "placement" into Public Domain regardless of any apparent clear author intent displayed or not at the time.

In addition to being an unlawful attempt at face value given the circumstances, in my view, the initial use of "F.C." also subverted any predisposed "good faith" the author or authors might have normally enjoyed in the attempt to have the work wind up in public domain because it was used more so to conceal any connection to crimes already committed as well as facilitate the continued state of being a fugitive from the law - both of which preventing the ascertainment of the work's true free & clear status; one where others may have a claim to its control (i.e. the courts, the victims, the government and so on.) - than "F.C." being used as some artistic choice, literary vehicle or storyline characteristic integral to the work. I wholeheartedly admit, there is no way to 1000% prove that subversive nature to avoid connection with the liabilities already introduced prior to that point in time indeed was at the core of the author's usage of a mark other than his/her given name, merely that the question is a valid one. Based on the timeline of events before, during and after the attempt to circulate the work via newspaper publication now known to date, the fact the validity of Public Domain status was never properly weighed and considered at the time because the belief that author anonymity was to be the permanent attribution as well as the basis not to question the lawfulness in the execution of the waiving of copyright holder rights and the eventual discovery dissolving the anonymity of authorship and subsequent association with Kaczynski, his crimes & their victims, his plea bargained deal with its ordered lien plus all the other nuances mentioned throughout make it impossible for me to look the other way and accept a simplistic view where "it was stated therefore it must be valid" rules the day in this matter. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand this pile of text correctly, you're claiming that Kaczinsky was an "unperson" - that anything he said or wrote was pre-owned by someone else and therefore was censorable - because Kaczinsky had committed crimes, though he hadn't been convicted of them. So for example a news report that includes an interview of Kaczinsky should now be property of the auction winner, because the auctioneer sold off retroactively the copyright to what Kaczinsky said, so the media organization is left with a bogus title that doesn't entitle them to broadcast it any more. I say this is completely bogus. Wnt (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't believe you are getting the nuances involved at all. Starting with the first act in 1978 infringing upon that victim's rights and resulting in bodily harm and every similar act thereafter, opened Kaczynski to more and more liability both in the criminal and civil sense. Ownership is not the question - without rehashing everything said already; he created it so he's the owner. period. What does become limited is the ability for him to exercise rights such as waiving all that the copyright law afford ownership due to the liabilities he had accrued prior to creation. These exercises include the licensing of the work to others, granting permission for reproduction by others, consenting to the creation of derivative works AS WELL AS the waiving of all such rights and or benefits when attempting to make the work part of the public domain. Kaczynski needed to be free and clear of all claim or liability against him in order for the waiving of copyright rights and/or benefits to be lawful. The assumption by the law is that author's make such executions of their rights with the knowledge to the best of their reasonable ability that no other individuals right's are being violated in the process - that no others may have legitimate claim to or against the owner. This good faith by the law that the the author had waived his or her rights in good faith as well evaporated once the connection between Kaczynski's liability became tied to his holdings (i.e. property) part of which being the the ability to exercise the rights normally granted to owners/authors (i.e. intellectual property).

The attempt at placement of the work into PD was only valid from late 1995 until 1998 (arguably the only period when valid state of good faith afforded by anonymity may have existed), so unless you happen to have acted on that good faith within that time period, like the newspapers did, you cannot be held further liable also being an actor in good faith at that time. We on en.WS did not host this work until well after that window closed and the plea bargained lien had taken effect. Kaczynski never had the right free and clear of any and all claim or liability against him to lawfully renounce his ownership rights in order for the work to be legally in the public domain by 1995. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that the publishers (the newspapers) hold copyright over a public domain work because they published it? This is directly contrary to the WMF's well known position on the PD-Art tag, where they say that we can freely copy any two-dimensional PD artwork right off a web page, even if someone else took the picture and put it up there under a copyright. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The newspapers technically are exempted for their reproduction of the work (typically a web page created circa 1995/97) from liability of the lien in place retroactively as a result of an operation of law. Granted this has not been tested to my knowledge in the courts - I've come to this conclusion based on looking for any newspaper (re)creating the work post 1998 and I could not. Everything that's remotely manifesto associated with a publication of the day, as far as online publication went that is, does not have an edit or creation date after Kaczynski's plea-bargain date (or thereabouts). I'm not a lawyer by any measure so you can take that for what its worth. I tried to run down the facts to ground soon after this thread took off and that's what I found. What those newspapers can or cannot do isn't really a basis that can translate to what en.WS should or could do imho either.

What I think you are describing is a case where a "line-art" rendering of a more "robust" image skirts the boundaries of fair-use and may pass for acceptable for hosting without violation of copyright but that is in entirely other issue than the one at hand. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very relieved indeed that you are not a lawyer - hopefully this attack on the public domain is purely illusory. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I should add that Wikipedia is no different - some people are logged in under aliases because they're fugitives, or they're illegal immigrants, or because they're logging in from work against the employer's internet Terms of Use, etc. We must oppose this doctrine in every case. Wnt (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apples to oranges. You're taking privacy concerns & terms of service as a means to justify criminality (or at the very least, knowingly condoning unlawful acts) and the liability such actions inherently come with be it taking place on WikiThis or WikiThat, etc. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

w:Aaron Swartz is being told that violating a TOS is just like felony hacking. Besides, you're not claiming criminal law here is censoring the work - you're saying Kaczinsky owed some sort of civil liability. Anybody who is falling victim to the credit card vultures owes civil liability. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak to that situation but yes, Kaczynski's unlawful attempt to waive his copyright granted rights followed by his agreement to a plea bargain where any further attempt to execute copyright holder's rights became limited by the lien against all his holdings as part of the court ordered restitution for the named victims is now more a civil matter than criminal. The auction of his physical property merely allowed the government to liquidate the items in their possession rather than be forced to hold or allow Kaczynski access to them again. The lien in place helped facilitate the idea of an auction but by no means was the end of the auction the same as satisfying the lien. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The ruling plainly states that "The current Plan...is strictly limited to the physical originals of the documents previously seized from Kaczynski's cabin." Conjecture to the contrary should be understood as just that: conjecture, in direct contradiction to the direct and explicit terms of the ruling.

George Orwell III asserts that the auction of said physical originals is only "one of many parts of the effort to satisfy the outstanding amount that was ordered". If part of that effort actually includes a transfer of intellectual property rights it should be a simple matter to quote it.

He is profoundly mistaken if he thinks that transfer is "clearly (re)stated in the 2009 ruling quoted above". Said ruling is exclusively concerned with establishing the government's authority to execute the auction "Plan" as explicitly defined by the initial order - not with defining the Plan's scope. Kaczynski challenged their authority on three separate grounds and the Court shot him down. The passage George Orwell III quotes ("The restitution lien statute...") establishes the government's broad authority to execute said Plan - it establishes that the lien "may be enforced against all property and property rights" (emphasis added), not that it must be enforced against all property and property rights. The court establishes this to demonstrate that, as the passage concludes, "Kaczynski's facial challenge must fail". At issue, again, is Kaczynski's appeal challenging the Plan, not the scope of the plan or defining some additional "effort to satisfy the outstanding amount that was ordered."

As far as I can tell, the rights to this work are only in "a legal state of flux" in the sense that someone misunderstood, in a pretty basic way, the question at issue in the appeal he is quoting from. Perhaps if we could at least see a reference to someone else making this specific argument - not someone saying something that may or may not imply this argument, but some authority specifically and explicitly claiming that this work is no longer in the public domain - it would be worth giving a second thought. As it stands, I think the "conservative" assumption is that Time Magazine's lawyers are probably on top of things. Esaugladstone (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

. . . Kaczynski was sentenced to life in prison, and ordered to pay restitution to the specifically identified victims of his crimes in the amount of $15,026,000. Upon the entry of judgment of conviction, a lien arose in favor of the government on all of Kaczynski's property and rights to property, which will last until his restitution debt is satisfied.18 U.S.C. § 3613(c).

all means all (I don't think a link is needed to define 'all', right?)

Again, it was unfortunate that the auction of physical or corporeal property was introduced prior to making it clear that it was only half or part of the entire issue at hand which is the lien. As quoted & linked directly above; basically the lien goes against any & all types of property no matter how one tries to parse the term. It is understood that transfer of ownership of said intellectual property is not the question -- That kind transfer by its inherit physical nature alone can only pertain to tangible items and thus he had issues with the Auction or its plan (not relevant). It is implied that Kaczynski may indeed still retain ownership here as well, as do all authors upon the creation of their works, but its the ability or inability to exercise the rights granted to such "owners" as a new rights holder, not as an owner granted some rights, that is in question.

Being an owner of an incorporeal property such a copyright is worthless in every sense of the word if one cannot actually exercise any of the rights normally granted to such authorship when free and clear of all limit or liability. His victims, by an operation of law as a result of a plea-bargain induced order of restitution in the form of a lien, have a claim against those 'rights to property'. This does not give the named victims the right to exercise any of those normally granted rights either; that was not the point in the award. The point was to curtail any change in possible or realized valuation and/or notoriety that may or may not come with any of his works - physical or otherwise. On top of this, there is still the possible matter pertaining to un-named vitims and so on yet to be ruled on (if need be) if the named victims' award in force is somehow circumvented or satisfied,

Finally your point on Time hosting a 1997-created CNN web page was covered earlier and falls between the cracks of someone who used the mark "F.C." in an attempt to waive rights he/she neither claimed outright then renounced in a normal nor lawful manner (but in general is allowed for in "good faith" & all things being equal at that momment) and the point in time when actual attribution of authorship became associated with and then legally tied to Kaczynski's hand. Wikisource did not host this work during that period between the two points in time where a case can be made to justify the continued hosting of it today also as an actor in good faith back then; CNN and Time did (re)produce the work during that period based on that same assumption of good faith so they can't be held liable or in conflict with the rulings as they stand today. What's worse is this the continued belief we are justified in spite of all that has come to light since and the notion this would somehow constitute a precedent instead of a single isolated case of less than optimal oversight with exceptional circumstances surrounding the matter and in play over time. — George Orwell III (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The auction satisfies the notion that the government cannot hold property gathered during their investigation and prosecution beyond a reasonable amount of time once a conviction has been secured & runs the appeal process (now over). Since a lien is still in place against all Kaczynski properties, physical, intellectual or otherwise, and an amount in the millions of dollars remains outstanding as well, rather than returning those items to Kaczynski only to have them removed again this time by civil rather than criminal court proceedings, the government came up with this auction solution where the money made goes directly towards making a dent in the awarded restitution amount still owed to his victims.

No real bearing on the matter discussed above other than reinforcing the point that in this one narrow instance & only under these unique circumstances, an author's liability, introduced by acting in concert with and ending in the conviction of criminal acts, allows for an operation of law to lay new rights and new claims by the victims of those crimes against this paarticular author, superseding the ability of said author from exercising his rights and protections normal granted under copyright law now, when lawfully recognized, without question; mostly thanks to his unlawful attempt to exercise those same rights before he was caught and identified as the sole author, revealing the dubious nature of his proclaimed intent, back then. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

But in this case they explicitly did not claim seizure of his copyrights, only the physical items. I read that at some point; it came up during Kaczynski's suit to prevent the sale of those items. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't "seize" intellectual property - only prevent the exercising of the rights and/or protections afforded to the copyright holders under the authorship - rights which he now shares with his victims until the outstanding amount is satisfied (i.e. never). A copyright owner who cannot exercise any of his or her rights as a copyright holder means that you get properly attributed as the creator and owner but does little else in the way of usefulness or worth for the owner. He is still technically the copyright owner but without payment of restitution in full or by mutual consent with the victims, he can't even give those rights and/or protections granted to most other authors who are not confronted by this predicament away for free. The same holds true for the victims; they can't simply exercise any of the rights and protections normally afforded rights holders without his consent (not likely to ever happen either). That perpetual tug-of-war imposed by the lien was partially the court's intent behind the plea bargain along with the awarding of restitution in the first place -- to make his works impotent and unavailable via that operation of law.

All appropriate physical items are being auctioned off btw. They were a slightly different matter than blocking any possible gain in his or his work' notoriety, etc., because those items were originally taken as evidence not restitution. All the remaining inappropriate items are kept by the Bureau of Prisons in holding since convicts typically don't have rights to access such items under normal circumstances never mind in the Unabomber's case. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Really, the court's intent with the "perpetual tug-of-war" was "to make his works impotent and unavailable"? In other words, the court was imposing censorship, and helping the victims was just a pretext? I don't think the court has stated that anywhere, and I don't think it would be legal in any case. Copyright is not supposed to be used to enforce censorship either in general or on Wikisource in particular.--91.148.159.4 17:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The court was, and still is, only acting in lieu of the plea bargain - remember, there was no trial, no jury; only Kazcynski's signature agreeing to all this in order to spare him the the death sentence surely to come otherwise - and the courts merely act as the trustee for the named victims and their wishes, not the government's (well maybe in the sense this resolution was less time and cost consuming they also wished it I guess).

You are absolutely right that the suspension of rights, what you called censorship in this case, is unconstitutional when committed by the government against the individual normally, but the plea-bargained lien was primarily done as relief for the named victims as well as well as to avoid action on the part of the un-named victims (i.e. the community-at-large as a servicee of the Federal Postal system as run by the Government both of which that would have also had standing in the courts as victims of Kazcynski's crimes had the case gone to a jury trial). Rights curtailed in this manner as relief order as a result of a plea bargain is not unconstitutional nor all that uncommon. The convicted chronic drunk driver's car won't start unless he/she blows into a breathalyzer first; the multiple conviction burglar must wear an ankle bracelet to track his or her movements for example - both done in the name of protecting in advance of or reassuring after the fact the community-at-large's wishes or standing in criminal matters.

Once again, this is an extremely unique set of circumstances beside the most glaring one where somebody engaged in such activity actually had something possibly worthwhile to say. Because of all these particular nuances, I do not think removal of this work constitutes setting of any sort of en.WS precedent, practice or policy (although recent events surrounding the Norway bombing of July 2011 might go to these same unresolved questions we face here one day in the future - and this time there will be no benefit of well-intentioned but somewhat clueless acting in good faith here on en.WS ahead of that debate I'm afraid). — George Orwell III (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant: the point is that Ted Kaczynski had no power to bargain away our right to reproduce public domain material. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "an author's liability...allows for an operation of law to lay new rights and new claims by the victims of those crimes against this paarticular author". Allows. And this auction demonstrates that this operation was allowed with regard to the physical items auctioned. It does not, however, "reinforce" that this operation was allowed with respect to intellectual property rights. At the most the auction demonstrates that it was allowed with respect to Kaczynski's manuscripts, which we all agree were ordered to be auctioned. Esaugladstone (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I will graciously work on this when/if this becomes clearly PD, but I never pictured Wikisource being the cutting edge for fringe PD publications; rather, like, the safest place imaginable as far as what belongs here and not. At this point, I think we have said all there is to say; let's approach someone whose field is at minimum, law-related (sorry to assume that none of you are lawyers...) Does anyone know anybody like this? I have met a lawyer at some wiki-meetups who I think is on arbcom at en.wp; it that a route (outsourcing this) anyone is interested in taking? - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep and restore now!. It needs to be a bedrock position for Wikimedians of all stripes that once an item is released to the public domain or a free license, it can't be sold or seized back out of it. This issue has become relevant because Anders Breivik's "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence" incorporates it, and people are arguing for deletion of free images of Breivik based on that his manifesto included this manifesto so he must be a Copyright Thief. Stamp this out now! The auction is over, and I don't believe the newspapers that published the manifesto have gone back and cut it out of their archives as a copyright violation. I don't believe that the people publishing "2083' now are violating the copyright of some auctioneer. The unpublished documents for which no actual release was made may be another issue worthy of legal debating either way (though I would not condone this method of backdoor censorship in any case), but this debate should be closed. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the plenty of other licence violations by Anders, it's a moot point when it comes to him. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep - and end this nonsensical descent into irrelevant semantics immediately! Putting aside all relative legal issues regarding public domain rights--or their alleged absence--of the material in question, all those who value their rights as human beings with brains to maintain and defend any opinion, ever, in any public forum, anywhere, must instead address to completion that one question which all of this useless ambiguity exists only to obfuscate: even in the presence of obvious pretext in its presentation, can any knowledge ever be harmful without first being tainted by dangerous context? The answer is a resounding NO. The spirit of all law, as we know it, has only ever been conceived and intended to serve as a form of temperate middle ground toward which all human philosophical dissonance inevitably migrates... and is placed in suspended animation. Laws are not intended to resolve dilemmas of any kind. The purpose of any law is merely that of a warning bell, meant to draw attention to the fact that a resolution is necessary; to prevent degeneration into further disorder in the midst of conflict. Obviously, this minor detail has been lost to most, as the rich have learned to grow richer by exploiting society's good-faith vulnerability to the pretense of "preservation" and "justice" - and at the mere expense of actual fundamental freedoms everywhere. Have none of you read the publication--deliberate word choice, by the by--in question? The irony of this situation is grossly undeniable, and from an intellectual perspective, is in all other ways simply gross. To ignore the greater purpose of the spirit of the laws in question would be tantamount to violating them ALL outright just for the sake of doing so. This entire "discussion" smacks grossly of Good Ol' Boy-ism: debating the "appropriate" exercise of power simply for the sake of exercising power, when all that's either needed or warranted is often just the common sense to do nothing at all. Where is the devil's advocate here? I only see a swarm of vultures struggling vainly to peck the life out of an idea - which is the one thing born of human effort that can never be killed. What terrible, terrible irony... —unsigned comment by67.183.240.211 (talk) .

This closure seems like a conflict of interest, since the admin making the deletion is the one vigorously arguing for it. The legal argument for deletion is disputed and may be unsound, as it has not (AFAIK) ever been tested by the courts, and actual consensus seems to be keep (something like 7-8 keep 3-4 delete).--T. Mazzei (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK its unclosed. I was just trying to keep up with my housekeeping was all. I don't think anyone has had a leg to stand on with this isolated case so far but if some folks feel otherwise I'm in no rush not hear them out. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with delete, but it did not seem like there was either a clear consensus or an overwhelming legal argument for delete. With respect to the legalities: I find the argument that the document was not really placed in the public domain somewhat unconvincing. And if the document was in the public domain at the time of the lien, then I don't think a lien can bring it back out.--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems you are still under the impression that one places something into the Public Domain and that is that. There is no such thing as Public Domain by any legal measure; its not defined anywhere in the law its not mentioned in the law - nada.

There is, however, copyright owners and copyright rights holders. In order for anything to wind up in the negative space we call Public Domain, one must lawfully waive all rights and benefits afforded to them by law and, to the best of their knowledge, are free and clear of all claim or liability.

In this case the liability was always there - years before the work was created - therefore he was not acting in good-faith when making the attempt to waive copyright holder rights. His intent may have been clear but this is never in question because the attempt was invalid or unlawful to begin with.

All the lien did is shut down the possibibility of any further reproduction/derivatives and the chance for Ted to ever properly waive his rights now that the question of free & clear or good faith has been superseeded by the plea bargain and conviction. All this is an exception & not a rule of thumb btw. The operation of law creating new rights is cited in the United States Code at the top. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand that a document enters public domain after all existing rights are expired or given up. In this case the copyright holder did so very publicly. I find the argument of "pre-existing liability" unconvincing. Does this supposed "pre-existing liability" apply exclusively to copyright and not to any of the other real or incorporeal property which he has presumably divested himself of between his crimes and his conviction? If so, why? if not, then logically if a criminal (for example) sells his car between the commission of a crime and his conviction, then the government could seize the vehicle for payment of a lien on the grounds that he had a pre-existing liability, and therefor the sale was unlawful. I don't think this is the case.--T. Mazzei (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the car part of the attempt to remain a fugative of the law, further an ongoing crime spree or was threatened to run people over with it if he didn't get his way by newspaper publication? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Even so, could the gov't seize the car (no longer in his possession), for payment of a lien? I don't believe so.--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

But it wasn't seized for a lien - it was seized as evidence just like everything else remotely related to the crimes might have been. That is the reason the physical items siezed not directly related to his crimes & subsequent prosecution had to go up for auction rather than returned to the individual as they normally would. There was also a window where the good faith of copyright applied.... and Time magazine and CNN took advantage of it - also acting under belief of good faith was still at play. The problem is we are repoducing it circa 2005 & not circa 1999 when the window arguably existed. I'm not saying it completely stinks but that is what the courts came up with and to try and squeeze it in now is anything but in line with the court rulings never mind in the spirit of "good-faith". The car analogy is misleading because the car plays no role in any crime spree but would have been put up for auction if it was still in his possession at the time of his capture. Had the car been used in some aspect of a crime and getting rid of it helped lower the evidence (lower the liability in the criminal's mind) against proving the crime - you can safely bet the courts can still seize it even if it was sold "correctly" under the laws that dictate such sales. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you considered its role in relation to the crimes and the inherent liability such crimes introduce since in 99.9% of the possible similar cases out there never we get past the point of annonymity (See the Zodiac Cipher instance somewhere above on this Copyright Violation page for example). We frequently rely on the fact the person is a criminal and therefore will never come along to exercise (or renounce) his authorship rights or the fact that the victims of such crimes wish to avoid further confrontation and do not seek retribution. That is not the case here where we have a defined set of "named" victims who, as part of a plea bargain, were included in the ruling(s) in order to satisfy their desire for some sort of resitution in spite of the lack of a death penalty being sought. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

But by the logic of "pre-existing liability", no writing by a criminal (post-crime) can be considered public domain. You seem to be arguing "we can reproduce clearly copyrighted work because we're unlikely to get called on it"--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that is the problem when it comes to WS hosting and manifestos in general. The very nature of a manifesto normally means it is not in compliance with some aspect of the law and, therefore, means some sort of liability is likely to exist at the same time as well. The idea that we can host these works that exist in this limbo has never been properly addressed as far my searching of WS histories can best tell. In fact, the idea that we can "get away with hosting it" because it is unlikely the "real" parties will never step forward thanks to some crime or other unlawful act has been floated here more than once. Here is one single, narrow instance where the courts stepped in via an operation of law to place new rights with the victims that we don't normally see happen in such questionable cases. I believe this action makes this instance unique and subject to facing up to what normally is brushed under the rug as "who cares... its not like he/she is going to go to court to challenge us". -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, if he wanted to honor the intent all unknown author's normally recieve as part of the good faith inferred to in copyright law, he should have denied any connection to being F.C. regardless of the court's connection to him. Also, ownership has not been stripped from Ted in the lien, merely the right to exercise any of the copyright holder rights afforded to copyright owners by the operation of law giving the victims a say (or neh) in whatever the future may or may not bring for the work(s) in question. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

That he still has "ownership" (whatever that means) is beside the point since it is, as far as I can tell, an empty title. The lien could (I suppose) have stripped him of "ownership". The lien could not strip him of copyright since he no longer possessed it.--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The Constitution basically insures he is the owner no matter what. You are correct, however, that the ability to exercise his rights as the owner has been legally circumvented due in part to his mis-handling of proper waiving of rights to begin with. For example, had he used his real name in spite of it giving himself up to the law at the time, this could not have taken place in regards to this work. The idea that claiming a larger group was behind the authorship of the work was not some quiant literary device integral to plot development or something similar to that. This is why intent is the measure by which the law deems the validity of waiving of rights. Yes, his intent was clearly worded at face value but his own desire to remain free betrayed the good faith of copyright law and the inherent liability created by such actions. We have come to know the details since and he even agreed to as much by accepting the plea bargain in return for not seeking the death penalty. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment (I'm not sure where the appropriate place in the thread is anymore, this is not limited to the Auction). I am unfamiliar with the timeline and do not see it clearly stated, I do not have time to research it. However, GO3's arguments are not legally unsound; I know that's effectively a double negative, but as some have pointed out there are no cases on point than anyone here can identify (maybe someone who's being paid to do so can check Westlaw or Lexis to be sure). Generally, I see no reason that if an operation of law stripped the creator of his right to transfer, a court couldn't easily void or rescind any attempted transfer, including a dedication to the public domain; particularly if the rights were perceived to have any value (and the right to prohibit publication likely has some value to the victims at least). Furthermore, once you know or should know that there are claims against you and you transfer property for substantially less than fair market value, you risk the transfer being deemed fraudulent in a civil action or bankruptcy. Fraudulent transfers can be undone. Normally only bona fide purchasers for value without notice are protected at all; the public is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The above suggests that we are both a purported recipient of a gift (dedication), that is an attempted transaction for which there is no consideration, and that we are on notice to a degree. There may be cases in which the public interest is given greater weight than that; I am unaware of them (and I haven't actively looked). Again, I don't know the timelines and that could affect the answer. I don't really think this merits the effort it would require for the WMF counsel to give an opinion. The ideas in favor of keeping seem to largely rely on the public domain being sacrosanct. As Hesperian notes, the problem here is that the dedication itself may be void or voidable ab initio. Although we could leave this up and wait for action by the Government or a private lawsuit by one or more victims against the Foundation or the editors who have posted the article, I question whether any of us would want that exposure. I am generally aggressive on copyright but I don't see the cost-benefit here as particularly attractive; though that's a personal assessment.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 07:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and my apologies for the confusion - I wish the "auction" portion had never taken the forefront as it did either. To add, I want to stress that this is one narrow and exceptionally unique case that in no way should be thought to influence the status of other "similar" works where "crime" has played a role. It is the action taken in part by the courts afterward that has made this a different case for consideration whether to host or not. The span of several years for court proceedings to "end" did not help to illustrate the points of contention as well. I wonder where all this would be if law enforcement decided to sit on the letter rather than allow the papers to run it publically. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

delete - I would like to argue further, but at this point it would be more out of devil's advocacy than actual belief that the work is free and clear.--T. Mazzei (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Delete, Lack of publication indicates the copyright clock never started. Research for a published copy stagnated, Delete with no objections to recreation with proof of publication leading to an expiration of copyright. Jeepday(talk) 12:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This one would sit fairly similarly. Speech in the parliament (1947), though not part of the legislation, so not an edict. Not sure whether the Canadian parliamentary presentation would make a difference to when it comes into the public domain, and how the US would then deal with it. — billinghurstsDrewth 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A speech during the debate over a public policy, especially within the walls of government by an elected official, may mirror or fall under at least two U.S. "principles" of copyright law:

was created by a [Federal] Government employee during the course of their official duties

meets the definition summarized as 'citizens should be aware of and have free access to the laws they are governed by and expected to follow'

Now the second one is fuzzy, in my opinion, because some seem to think that the process of arriving at a final enacted law, even those debates and legislative introductions that never get anywhere near a final law or the efforts creating good public policy, are included for copyright protections. I beg to differ since public participation is the key to the process of creating sound law and good public policy, not free acecess to the bits and pieces that may be somewhat relevant to the citizens only from a historical perspective and not from a "point of view" that actual governs them and must adhere to.

That said, I don't think either of these apply well enough to such a work made by a foreign government employee where no such co-governance is constituionally outlined piting Federal against State as we have here in the U.S. and lean towards delete unless a more compeling point of view is introduced. — George Orwell III (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Works by non-U.S. governments are copyrighted under U.S. law unless the country of origin denounces its rights. Delete. zginder (talk)

Canada has Crown Copyright too. That would definitely be Crown Copyright in the UK... need to look at Canada's law. Yeah, it was closely modeled on the UK 1911 Copyright Act and says: "where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year." So... Keep, as the copyright is expired in Canada, and we typically treat the Crown Copyright stuff as a special case of PD-author (i.e. placed in the public domain by its author; the UK has explicitly said that its expirations apply worldwide). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep--In light of Carl's findings, Keep. Can't Harry Potter fix all these Crown Copyright ones once and for all so we stop wasting time with them? — George Orwell III (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) — George Orwell III (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a separate parliamentary copyright I don't think (in the UK, that distinction only started in 1988, and it has the same basic term lengths anyways). Per this link, the parliament seems to use crown copyright to control things. All governmental copyright was Crown Copyright in 1947, under the above rules, I'm pretty sure. This link seems to further enforce that. However, there is one item of concern -- the term is 50 years from publication, not creation, and that last link seems to be careful to make sure things are still considered "unpublished" (thus with a much longer copyright term, possibly infinite). So, this would have needed to be published at the time -- if not, copyright may still exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Delete, No release of copyright. Jeepday(talk) 12:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a 2004 letter that I came across while looking through User:Amire80/Empty pages. I was going to move the images to Commons (and create an Index here) but there is no licence. Further, Moazzam Begg presumably retains copyright on this, unless he released it at some point. If he did, I haven't found any indication of this. He distributed it widely but I don't think that's the same thing. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. - Unambiguously in copyright in Greece and therefore most likely in the US. No evidence of permission (not thinking the author would object is unsatisfactory), and out of scope (not English). If you have written permission from the author or his estate to publish it, submit proof via e-mail according to the instructions at Commons:OTRS and then upload to the Greek Wikisource or if you have scans of the documents upload them to commons. Keeping clear copyvios here for months while we wait for things to sort themselves out is unacceptable.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 21:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This lecture belongs at Greek Wikisource if it belongs at all, but since the contibutor left it here, this may be a better place for him to answer for it. It says it was a lecture given in 1942 at E. M. Poluto thermotechniou in Greece. Greece is a life + 70 country so even the author died that year, it's not in the public domain as of today; therefore it was eligible for URAA copyright restoration in the U.S. and its 95-year term (copyright until 2037), unless we get a license from the author, Al I. Pappas. User:Apappas, the ball is your court; you have a couple of weeks to respond. ResScholar (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Was Greece a +70 country in 1996, or is that more recent? — billinghurstsDrewth 14:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

More recent. 1942 happens to be the cutoff year though; they non-retroactively extended to 70 pma in 1993, meaning if someone died in 1943 their copyright got extended, but if they died in 1942 they did not. See w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Greece probably had to make that retroactive later on to conform with the EU directives, so it is under copyright in Greece now, but that happened after the URAA date. Still extremely unlikely to be PD though. On the other hand... the user seems to have the same last name as the author, so maybe this was family material (or even the same person?), but I don't see a license given. It was given during the Axis occupation of Greece and that appears to be part of the subject matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, looks like the same user edited w:el:Αλέξανδρος_Παππάς, presumably this same person, who was a professor at a Greek University. That article gives the life dates of 1898-1984. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This lecture was printed and given to the students in 1942. I have the printed lecture in my hands and it does not state any copyright. I do not think, that professor A. Pappas who died in 1984 would object to his lecture being published on wikisource.

The following discussion is closed:Delete, Copyrighted until 2035 when the copyright (should) expire given no new changes in law. Per current WS architecture the existing html should be available for un-deletion , with the addition of appropriate license. Jeepday(talk) 12:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Novel published in 1939 in Weird Tales, three years after the death of the author Robert Ervin Howard. The copyright was renewed by Howard's estate in 1966 (27 years later). I understand that there is some disagreement over whether the renewal was valid but I think it's too far into the grey area for it to be hosted on Wikisource. I thought I had already listed this one but it seems I missed it. I will copy it to Wikilivres over the next few days. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a plan. When deleting, it would be useful to reference the previous deletion discussion in the archives. — billinghurstsDrewth 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Under U.S. law (1909 copyright act), a copyright renewal endures for 28 years. It is clear from sections 304(a)-(b) of the 1976 Copyright Act, that copyrights in force when the act took effect gained the benefit of "life + 50" - which for poor young REH, would have extended only through 1986. It was not until passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (1998) that statutory term was extended to 95 years from publication for works-for-hire such as Almuric - but this extension applied only to works _still in copyright_, which, as of 1986, Almuric had not been. So this is not really a grey question: Almuric is out of copyright. I hope it will soon be restored to wikisource.Patent.drafter (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are indicating my/our reference guide at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm is not sufficiently finely tuned for deaths of authors between 1923 to 1947 who all only got pma+50 years under the 1976 act? Not my area of knowledge, however, if under the 1909 act a work published in 1939 there was 28 years + a renewal for another 28 years, that would have carried a copyright until 1995/96. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I will agree that I got the math wrong by ten years - the work should have had the benefit of the _greater of_ life + 50 or renewed term. So yes, until 1995 (1967 + 28). Still fell short of the Sonny Bono CTEA effective date, as far as I can figure it out. The tricky bit missed by the reference guide (I _thought_) was that 17 USC 304(a) grants an additional 67 years only to copyrights that were still in their _first_ term as of 1978. The Almuric copyright was in its renewal term, so it fell through that clause completely. However, deleted language of the 1976 Copyright Act granted an expiration of 75 years from 1939, which would have been 2014 ... presuming copyright was properly secured at the time of publication ... so, overall, I guess I didn't know wtf I was talking about ... see user name > Patent.drafter (User:Patent.drafter) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Patent.drafter (User:Patent.drafter) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Peter Hirtle at Cornell, the author of the referenced page above about this matter, he responds …

“

Life+ terms only apply to published works created after 1978 and unpublished works created at any time. For a work published prior to 1978, the life+ terms have no relevance; only whether the work was renewed. When the US shifted to the life+50 (now 70) term in 1978, it did not make the terms retroactive to earlier published works. It is therefore very easy to have works that are in the public domain in the UK because the author died more than 70 years ago that are protected by copyright in the U.S.

”

—Peter Hirtle via email

and extensions were for 75 years total

“

Up until 1998, renewed copyrights ran an additional 47 years (hence, 75 years total), rounded up to the end of the calendar year. A copyright extension bill signed that year extended copyrights still in force for an additional 20 years. However, since copyrights from 1922 had already expired, anything copyrighted before 1923 is now in the public domain in the United States, even if its copyright was renewed. Copyrights from 1923 to 1963, if not renewed, and not made exempt from the renewal requirement (see above) have also expired.

Hence it is still in copyright as it was renewed and the pma+50 is not applicable. As a sidenote, the 75 years component was something that I had not noticed in text before, and I have asked Peter Hirtle if that could be explicit in the footnote of his marvellous page.— billinghurstsDrewth 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

delete renewed for 75 years, and that becomes captured by 1998 Act, so therefore 95 years from publication, ie. copyright until 2035 (as per findings above) — billinghurstsDrewth 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. No evidence of US publication of this translation, still in copyright in UK and thus in US.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 21:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This work has been previously discussed here, though I believe that some of the work that I have done puts that decision in doubt. The work is claimed as having been published in 1929 in London, and was tagged with {{PD-US-no-renewal}} though with no evidence that it was published in the United States, let alone at or about the same time. From a little work that I have undertaken the author's dates of life are 1899 – 1966. So in the UK (home country) this author's work looks to be in copyright until 2037. To keep the work I think that we would need to demonstrate that the work was published in the US in 1929, and as we have no scan, in my opinion there is not a lot of evidence with which to make that conclusion. I will undertake some research to see if I can find evidence that it has been published in the US. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Worldcat only shows a UK publishing, and the 1978 reprint in the US. Searches [8][9] of the archives of the NYT] does not show any reference. Without knowing the terms of the US later reprint, I cannot see any evidence that it is PD, though we may wish to keep it as someone else has reprinted it. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the sounds of it, Delete, unfortunately. I can see (I think) London editions from 1929 and 1933 on Google Books (snippet view only), but it does not appear to have been published in the U.S. at the time. If so, it would have been OK in 1978, but copyright in the translation would have been restored in 1996, and would last until 2025. There appear to be some English translations published as far back as the 1500s but I don't see any online. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

From Forumromanum.org. PD; one of many translations; this one by Flora Grierson (London: Constable and Co., 1929)

Other translations: copied here from the talk page of the work for archive/research purposes as this will be deleted as an orphan. The text below was all entered by User:Sj at Talk:The_Tale_of_the_Two_Lovers in 3 edits on 23 October 2005:

The Goodli History of the most noble and beautiful Ladye Lucres of Scene in Tuskan and of her lover Euryalus verye pleasaunt and delectable unto the reader. 1560. (also W. Braunche, 1596: C. Allen, 1639: and part of the Memoirs of Hippolite Count of Douglas, 1708.)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. - 2007 work with no evidence of release.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Work added in 2007, and without a licence. After finding a new location at the originating site for the page, I find that the whole site has copyright applied. We don't have anything that was a check of the older setup to know whether it had a public domain release or not.

delete no evidence that it is in the public domain. — billinghurstsDrewth 02:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You can always use the Wayback Machine; this is how the page looked in 2005. Not much difference though -- it was written by that organization's former head it sounds like, and there was a copyright notice on the page then. DeleteCarl Lindberg (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

keep The article itself expresses that a public domain release was intended by the authors/signatories of the article. This article was of the nature of a message to the world's public. It's clear the authors wanted this message shouted from the parapets. This article is the kind of message that the authors would have wanted showered down on a population in leaflets from the sky if feasible. And in such a case, it is ridiculous to assume that the copyright intent was "don't pass on or tell this message to anyone else or you are in violation of this leaflet's copyright." Just because a copyright has been asserted does not imply that the publishing organization intends to restrict copying of the material. In this case, the overwhelmingly probable inference is that the publishing organization would welcome copying, as long as the material was attributed. From the article text: "The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere." Wikipedia publication clearly furthers the wishes of the authors and publishers in this case. —unsigned comment by142.232.74.81 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011.

Comment Unfortunately, that's not how copyright works. Without an appropriate release of the work (either through a deliberate release under a "free" license, or through age), we simply do not have the legal right to copy this work. If the authors really want us to distribute it, they should release it explicitly under a free license. Probably the best approach is to contact them and ask directly if they would consider such a license to all legal promulgation of this work. Otherwise, it is a clear copyvio. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. - Evidence points to first publication in UK in 1946 and thus still in copyright there and in the US unless published within 30 days in the US - for which there is no real evidence.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 21:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This page claims to come from a 1919 newspaper article, but there are insufficient details to find a specific article, and it has been flagged for over a month as a "known fabrication". Links recently added on the talk page claim that this piece was invented in a magazine in 1946. Without access to the original I can't say whether the current page is a copyright violation, but it seems inappropriate material for Wikisource even without that proof. --RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

See Snopes. I'm confident that it was long in publication in the US without a proper copyright notice, and hence it's {{PD-US-no notice}}. I would like for us to host in some form, though it would be better if we could cite it as part of an original text, preferably a scan.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the book Encyclopedia of Urban Legends (provided through this Google Books link on the talk page), the piece was first published in a British magazine, so wouldn't UK copyright rules apply rather than US? --RL0919 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, US copyright rules would still apply, but the URAA would have brought it back into copyright as if it were published with a copyright notice in the US, so it's probably technically still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Still depends whether it was reprinted in US and then within the allowable timeframe. Seems like a whole lot of fuss about nothing. I am happy to progress with Prosfilaes suggestion. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as copyright violation- I have found several sources attesting to the first publication in England 1946. Based on Prosfilaes comment that makes still under copyright. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:copyright, deleted — billinghurstsDrewth 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

*Author, w:Chaim Zimmerman, died in 1995, no source or licence given. The work was apparently published in 1993 according to his WP article. I can't find this work's text by quick Google of the title or a section of text, so I can't see any reason to assume it is PD. I have left a note at the contributor's page. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Clear copyright violations should be deleted, and if we are wrong, then we can undelete. Nothing compelling in the "keep" space from what I can see. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. - no evidence of release of 2006 letter.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be a letter from a detainee related to Guantanamo to his solicitors. Referenced to a page at Wall Street Journal. There is no evidence that the person has considered this a public letter, or considered as public domain. Unless there is evidence that this work is in the public domain, I do not see how this work can be maintained at enWS. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, we can't take the "dear everybody" as an implied release, and there is nothing to say that it was formally released. Copyright, as any other letter from 2006 is. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. Published in 1967, therefore still in copyright. As Prosfilaes points out the copyright rests with someone, either creditors or with owners, or with heirs or creditors, or heirs of owners, or possibly even with the State as unclaimed property; but intellectual property, like other property interests, do not simply vanish during a dissolution. As Jeepday points out, earlier versions may exist and if evidence of them can be found restoration can be considered.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This Robert E. Howard work has a note at Author:Robert Ervin Howard saying "(First published in The Magazine of Horror, Spring 1967; publisher, Health Knowledge, Inc., dissolved in 1977 - no record of assets being purchased)". I don't see how it follows that this is PD; someone owns the copyright to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the source of the comment is http://www.robert-e-howard.org/AnotherThought4rerevised.html I don't find any earlier publications of the work, but do find a 2005 publication of The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian by Robert E. Howard, Mark Schultz (page 297), the copyright page of this book may shed some light, looks like Conan properties international is claiming copyright. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: I wasn't sure about the copyright status, so I had't touched it yet (I suspect some of the Robert E. Howard works I've previously marked as copyright violations may be in the public domain afterall, so I've been wary of tagging any more). However, with the CPI claim, I say delete, although they seem to claim some of the works about which I'm now suspicious (and I think if the publisher held the rights when it went was dissovled and no one else purchased them, then they may enter the public domain). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that CPI claim has any real bearing. See - CONAN attacks fans, February 24, 2009, Filed under: News http://www.sffaudio.com/?p=4128 Essentially this article claims that CPI is claiming copyright on items that are PD. Given the lack of anyone arguing against CPI that they actually own specific copyrights, it is probable the works actually are PD. Of course at WS we have to default to delete if we can not show reasonable arguments for PD. I would not let the claims of CPI distract me from further research on PD probably the reverse. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how a company would dissolve and the rights disappear; if it wasn't public, it would reside with the owners, and if it was, it would get grabbed by one of the creditors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going with Delete as the PD status is questionable. How ever, Howard died in 1936, and there are lots of questionable claims when it comes to copyright on his works (see w:Paradox_Entertainment). Additionally while some of his works (Author:Robert_Ervin_Howard#Other_stories) are listed as not being published until some 50 years after his death, I know that I have found earlier publications of some of his works [10] then they are credited for. In short WS needs to delete this not because it is copyrighted, but because we can't show it is PD, it may actually be PD but the water is murky, if/when it becomes clearly PD, we can restore it. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted. - Work published in 2010, no evidence of PD or CC-BY-SA licensing/release.--Doug.(talk•contribs) 22:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't read Russian, but I'm not convinced that this paper published 2010 is PD. Can someone else have a look? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Russia is a party to most int'l copyright agreements. However, a translation of a work accrues a copyright separate from the original work, but not independent: the translator must license xyr translation with the copyright holder before it can be sold or compete economically. As a scientific work there may also be some limitations on the original copyright, especially as regards translations, but that would be a question for both a US copyright lawyer and Russian copyright lawyer. (In English academia most scientific journal publishers require authors to assign copyright to the publisher without recompense before publication. I do not know if this is also true in Russia.) IANAL, but that is my personal understanding of the situation. - Amgine (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Most do not assign copyright in perpetuity, it is more a licencing condition and restrictions. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as no evidence produced to demonstrate that the work is in the public domain. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Moved to commons, as the file is available on Commons, and PD it does not need to be kept here. Jeepday(talk) 11:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Zod-Vallejo.jpg is listed as Public domain because it wasn't published with a copyright notice. This is incorrect as it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle & the Vallejo Times. The description page does not show where the file came from..a question for the uploader.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

More: I would ask the same question for most of what is printed in Zodiac Killer letters. These were published in major newspapers...how can copyright not apply? Where did the image files come from? Were they scanned by the uploader or sourced from elsewhere?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright holds only over creative acts, and belongs to the creator. Zodiac wrote these letters. Zodiac holds the copyright in them. Zodiac gave permission (perhaps implicit) for these letters to be published, but that does not imply he transferred copyright. The act of publishing a photocopy of Zodiac's letters was not itself a creative act, so there is no new copyright involved. Similarly, the act of scanning the newspaper is not a created act. Since Zodiac is unlikely to come forward and acknowledge their authorship, I think {{PD-Disavowed}} is appropriate here. Hesperian 01:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This helps my understanding of copyright quite a bit...very useful. I can use this in other contexts. I had a more restrictive understanding than this. Is WikiSource the right venue to upload the FBI's case file on the Zodiac or should that go to the Commons? Thank you,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a few mistakes in the above reasoning. Firstly, the writer of the letters gave permission for only certain content to be published. Secondly, I dispute {{PD-Disavowed}}; I have not seen that reasoning for PD in use on Wikipedia or Commons and wonder on what basis in US law the template was created.

Copyright is the right for the person to get legal action taken against unauthorized copies of his work; copyright is not compulsory on the owner to sue for any infringements. Copyright is not trademark, where the owner is granted renewable (perpetual) right of protection provided that he or she always enforces that claim.

The author of a work, which qualifies for copyright, does not need to be identified to enjoy the copyright protection. The laws provide for that by allowing anonymous and pseudonymous works (see Circular 1, available at the US Copyright Office: "The year of publication may determine the duration of copyright protection for anonymous and pseudonymous works (when the author's identity is not revealed in the records of the Copyright Office) and for works made for hire.")

US Copyright law, § 302 (c) states "In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed."

Registration (in which the identity would be made known to the Office) is only needed to take legal action against infringements but "Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright." by either the author or "the duly authorized agent of such author, other copyright claimant, or owner of exclusive right(s)."[Circular 1] Regardless, the author's copyright is existent.

In summary, the Zodiac Killer (if that is who truly wrote those) has copyrights to the material mentioned, even if he chose to hide under a pseudonym. Publishing is the release (including in the form of an offer) of several copies of the work to the public. It is immaterial if the writer will not appear to sue if his copyright is infringed because he would be arrested; the point of the matter is that under the law, he can identify himself several years later and still sue for infringements to his copyright (even if in jail). Several convicted and suspected criminals have published items that might contain additional possibly incriminating material; there is no reason to deny that right to whoever is the Zodiac Killer if and when his identity becomes known.

Accordingly, my belief is as follows:

There are big problems with the "Source" of these materials. These have to be clearly verifiable.

For the letters:

The writer did not indicate a wish to publish his letters (permission must be explicit); his correspondence with the editors are private matters that he know are for a small group (not public).

The only item (work) he intended them to publish for him is the cipher.

Hence:

The letters are unpublished materials and are considered to have 120 years of copyright since creation.

The ciphers are public domain material: the writer never registered or attached a copyright notice to them.

For the confession:

The writer indicated for this to be "published for all to read" (publication by offer); hence, it is considered published.

It would be in the public domain for failing to follow the copyright law.

For the poem:

If the Wikipedia article is correct, this was inscribed in a public place for all to see.

It is likely there is an offer to allow reproductions to be made (such as no copyright notice—only a signature—and no statement that prohibits photography or copies to be made), so perhaps this can be treated as a publication.

Again in the public domain for failing to follow the copyright law.

For the images:

If they were sketched by federal employees, yes. If they were sketched by state employees, no.

All these would only be in consideration if sources are found that can back up the origin and dating of the materials. Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. He only asked that the cipher be published on the front page; you'd have to think he would expect the rest to be printed as well so to explain why the cipher was getting printed. Private letters are one thing; letters to newspapers in a situation like this are pretty much an invitation and expectation to publish (it is criminal evidence and newsworthy immediately). Also note this was before the 1976 Copyright Act; there was no explicit definition of publication, and although the new wording mostly tried to codify existing practice, you still had to use common-sense definitions of the term. It would be hard to claim unpublished, I think (and I'm sure a judge would try very hard to find a reason to deny copyright if it ever came to that, as there is a general reluctance to let someone profit from crimes, and this would be an example of that). I'm not sure what you mean by sketches done by government employees; all the images on that page appear to be authored by the killer. Well, other than the graphic material on the postcards he used. Oh, are you talking about the sketch on the en-wiki article? That appears to be from the San Francisco police department, and may even be signed, but judging from various wanted posters on the web, those were also published without a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Further note, the 1989 date is because thats the year the US ratified the Berne Convention and modified its internal law to comply with treaty terms. The zodic letters are not under copyright, having been published before this date with no assertion or marking of copyright. --24.237.0.62 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep I have yet to see the quoted source of the material that we have, which would be useful for the determination. The sending to a newspaper is only permission for them to publish (fair use), not a general relinquishing of copyright. All that said, that it related to a crime it seems to fall well into that general area that the applied tag would cover, especially considering the approach to proceeds of crime. On the balance of probability, it would seem reasonable for us to maintain the work until we received legal advice to the contrary, or a take down notice from the copyright holder. — billinghurstsDrewth 06:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)